Some Clarification on the $10,000/$1000 Challenges

UPDATED: I HAVE ADDED SOME SPECIFIC WAYS AGW COULD BE DISPROVED BELOW.

So, my two challenges to the deniers has been getting a lot of attention lately and the comments and accusations are really  flying. I think it would be easier to make a posting about this instead of addressing each one over and over.

The two challenges are in response to deniers claiming that man made global warming is not real and that the science to support them is conclusive. My challenge to them is to show their claims are true. That is all it is.

There have been complaints by deniers that this is not a fair challenge. Why not? Deniers are the ones that made the claim, why is it unfair to make them stand by their own words. If they think it is unfair to hold them to their own claims, then stop making the claims.

Some have tried to change the challenge by arguing semantics, saying that I have not defined the parameters clearly. The parameters are clear – put up or shut up. If they think that the parameters of their claims are not clear, then stop making the claims.

Some have objected that I treat them with harsh words. That is true, but doesn’t change the nature of the challenge. You guys have made the statements, not me. Why is your inability to produce the fault of what I think of you? The fact that you lie to the public like that with no ability to produce is why I say harsh things about you (and think much harsher things that I keep to myself). If you don’t like being treated harshly, then back up what you say with some proof.

Some have even gone so far as to claim that no one has ever denied that man made global warming is not real. I swear, I didn’t make that last statement up. This is such a brazen lie that I wonder if the people saying this have lost touch with reality. Seriously, I wonder if they have lost touch with the real world. One question to those people, if deniers have never said man made global warming is not real, then just what have you guys been saying all this time? There is a long record of your statements about how global warming is a fraud, etc. Once again, if you don’t like being held accountable for what you say, stop saying it.

Some have said the challenge should be to the scientists to prove their claims. Scientists, unlike the deniers, have to prove their statements every step of the way and have to do it every day. All of their work is submitted to refereed journals for review before it can become part of the scientific literature. After publication, their work is still examined and reexamined over and over. That is part of the scientific process – it has to be reproducible by other people. So, I don’t need to issue a challenge to the scientists because they already have a challenge much more rigorous than anything I could issue. The deniers should be held to the same level of accountability, but they aren’t. They are getting off very easy with my challenge.

So, I will do some of your work for you and provide you with a couple of ways to disprove AGW. It surprises me that I have to do this because the deniers just go on and on about how the science doesn’t support man made global warming. You really would think they could figure out a proof all on their own.

The first comes from an anonymous  reader that made a comment:

Option #1:

The basic tenets of AGW are these two IPCC conclusions:

It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C and extremely unlikely (95-100%) less than 1°C.

So if someone was able to scientifically disprove these two extremely likely / unlikely statements, then that should suffice. That said, the climate debate has shifted a bit over the past decades I’ve following it into at least “skeptics” grudgingly accepting (1) that the planet is actually warming and (2) the physics behind sensitivity excluding feedbacks being 1.1°C.

Option #2:

Deniers love claiming that previous cycles in the climate prove that the current warming cycle is nothing more than a naturally occurring warming cycle (of course, you have to concede that it is warming in order to make this claim).  The problem is that they never provide any proof, or even evidence, that there is any connection between the current warming cycle and naturally occurring cycles.

Proof that today’s warming cycle is a naturally occurring event would satisfy the challenge.

So, there you go. I set the challenge up to favor the deniers and have now even produced two separate ways they can win.

And, yet, THE DENIERS STILL CAN’T PRODUCE.

That is part of the problem. They are told to put or shut up and THEY DON’T DO EITHER ONE! Come on guys! Do one or the other!

They try to change the subject on the challenge. I have been told I should be the one to prove my stand. Two comments on that. First, the challenge is to the deniers, not to me. If they don’t like the challenge, then stop making the statements. Second, I DID! That is what my book is all about! I made a claim about the validity of man made global warming and I provided a proof to back up my claim. If they really want to see me prove the validity of man made global warming they only need to buy my book.

Until then, the challenge remains and it will remain unchanged. Deniers say man made global warming is false and it is easy to prove it. SO DO IT!

I’m still waiting. And, so is the rest of the world.

You know why you guys haven’t done it yet? Because you are frauds, liars and deceivers! You make statements to the public because you know you can say anything you want without being held accountable. The challenge remains – if is is so easy, why can’t you  do it?

Of course, we all know exactly why.

The lack of proof from you guys is all I need to prove my point.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Some Clarification on the $10,000/$1000 Challenges

  1. A couple problems – first you don't understand what skeptics claim. “The two challenges are in response to deniers claiming that man made global warming is not real and that the science to support them is conclusive. “

    Skeptics don't claim that CO2 emitted by man causes no warming. The claim is that much of the warming is likely natural warming. The world was warmer before the Little Ice Age. After the Little Ice Age, the earth began to warm. During the warming phase, people started emitting CO2. The CO2 likely added to the warming. It is unclear how much warming the increase in CO2 is responsible for. Most skeptics think natural warming caused at least half of the warming. Why is this important? Because it goes to the sensitivity of climate to CO2. If the climate is very sensitive to CO2, then if CO2 doubles, it could cause 5 or 6 degrees C of warming. This is enough to cause much of the glaciers in Greenland to melt as well as some in Antarctica. This would result in sea level rise and other problems.

    Second, your use of “denier” when you don't understand the arguments means you are an idiot.

    “Proof that today's warming cycle is a naturally occurring event would satisfy the challenge.”

    The problem in “proving” this is the same one climate alarmists face. The alarmists have made claims of how sensitive the climate is to changes in CO2. But they can't prove how sensitive climate is because the climate is too complex and chaotic to fully model. The current climate models use various “approximations” that are simply estimates put into the computer program for things that can't be calculated by the model. One of the most complex parameters is cloud feedback. Even the IPCC was forced to concede that there are large uncertainties in calculating cloud feedback.

    In science, how is a hypothesis disproved? Well, those who believe that CO2 causes large amounts of warming made several predictions based on their hypothesis. If the predictions fail, then they hypothesis is deemed to be disproved. Some of the predictions have already failed. Some others are on the verge of failing. For example, no climate model shows the pause in warming can last 20 years. The majority don't show that the pause can last 15 years. Yet it has almost lasted 18 years. In 2 years and 3 months, it will be 20 years of the pause and every current climate model will have been disproved.

    Like

  2. I'm beginning to think this is a new attempt by deniers to rewrite history. It is totally ludicrous to claim that deniers do not say AGW is not real. Literally, 30 seconds worth of research will show that to be completely asinine. Try these, for starters:

    The Heartland Institute and NIPCC:
    http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html

    How about this guy?:
    http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

    Or, any number of editorials in Forbes and Wall Street Journal:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/

    Or, this one:
    http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/

    And, Senator James Inhofe:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/james-inhofe

    I could have produced thousands of examples if I had wanted to take the time, but I'm not here to do your legwork. When you make comments like that it just destroys any credibility you might have had.

    Your other comments are just as bad and I have addressed them elsewhere. Really, deniers like you should study up a little before you go out in public.

    The challenge is in response to statements made by deniers. If deniers don't like being held accountable for what they say, then don't say it.

    How easy is that?

    Like

  3. Who's rewriting history now? “…. claim that no one has ever denied that man made global warming is not real …”

    No, sir. In my case, I have repeatedly challenged you to produce any SPECIFIC verbatim statements in which skeptic climate scientists or skeptic speakers have denied outright the idea that global warming in the general long-term sense – as in all the widespread claims to that effect – is not happening. The best you've come up with so far is some headline editor's shorthand version of a longer bit within an article where the writer said no warming has happened over the last 17 years. Fact is, the people I point to much more narrowly dispute that any kind of warming has occurred over the last decade or so, while not disputing how human activity has had some effect on the climate over the last century or so, but they also detail how the IPCC has not conclusively proven that greenhouse gases are the PRIMARY driver of what little global warming we've seen since the dawn of the industrial age. That is entirely why your chosen 'denier' label implodes in your face.

    Like

  4. “the fraud behind the theory of man-caused, ****catastrophic****, global warming” (emphasis mine). From your Forbes link. I think I'll choose to cherry pick like you this time and suggest that it's possible that ALL THE OTHER LINKS say something similar. Show us *your* “homework” that all of the links you have say “AGW is not real” without any qualifiers like the one above.

    Also from Forbes:
    “If you are a true believer in anthropogenic, catastrophic, global warming, you don’t know what you are talking about unless you also have at least looked through the hundreds of pages of calm, dispassionate science in Climate Change Reconsidered II, which also reviews the peer-reviewed literature on climate change. Go ahead, I dare you. What are you afraid of?”
    So, what are you afraid of?

    Like

  5. Oh, just to do some of that homework for you… From your NIPCC link:
    “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause ****catastrophic**** heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.” (emphasis mine). How many more of your links are going to do this exact same thing?

    Like

  6. 'Option 1: It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.'

    'Option 2: The problem is that they never provide any proof, or even evidence, that there is any connection between the current warming cycle and naturally occurring cycles.'

    Here you go: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:30/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:30/plot/esrl-amo/mean:30

    As I said before, please make your cheque payable to FSF.org. Your donation is STILL tax deductible.

    Thanks for playing.

    Like

  7. Man Made is a very bold statement, Mankind certainly has a part to play in change, however take all mankind off the planet and sure as a apple will drop from a tree you will find the earths climate continues to change, the rate may be varied but the change will still occur.
    This rock we inhabit was once significantly hotter and had greater water levels than those we know today, this is a scientific fact and many published articles and fossils prove this point, at some time in this planets existence something occurred which caused the extinction of many species and a large freeze, even scientists state this as fact. however after the event things again began to change, taking the planet on a slow path to rejuvenation and re-generation, yes ice is melting, that is after all what ice does, when ice melts, things get a little warmer and atmospheric changes occur, as ice melts the rate of melt would under any study increase as there is less melt.

    To disprove man-made is not hard, in fact it is simple, to claim man made is preposterous and easily disproved, what can not be disporved is man-kinds contribution, a far cry from being man-made.

    If you want to use the claim man-made you need to disprove all pre modern human change which is impossible, no one can show accurate data dating back 10000yrs let alone before the “ice age”.

    Man made = Disproven
    Human Contribution = No doubt

    Like

  8. 'These are nice plots and I really like this website'
    I aim to please.

    'but how in the world are you claiming these as evidence that man made global warming is not real?'
    Ah. I note the subtile language change. From 'human caused climate change being the *dominant* factor' to 'man made global warming being *not real*'. I suspect that you're trying your wriggle act (you snake-hips you), but as it's for a good cause (remember, cheques payable to FSF..) then here goes:

    The blue line is the AMO. What is the AMO? (sorry, I can't assume you know – you're just a physicist) The AMO is in the words of NOAA:
    ''The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.''

    So, it's a *natural* cycle. Then get your specs on and have a look at the graph. See how as the natural cycle of the AMO goes up and down, the temperatures go up and down? See how, before man's CO2 could have had much of an effect, in the late parts of the 19thC and early 20thC the temperatures slavishly follow the AMO? And they carry on following it through the 1940s to 1970's dip when CO2 was rocketing but temperatures fell? The *dominant* factor was the AMO not 0.035 percent CO2. Then onto the modern warming from the 1980's to 2000's that spawned the current chicken little climate movement. Do you notice how the temperatures are *still* following the AMO? Just as they always have? For at least a thousand years? At no time in the 990's do I remember you folks saying 'don't worry boys – it's mostly a natural cycle'…

    Note:

    1) I'm not saying that CO2 has no effect, but that natural factors are the *dominant* factor. A good sized chunk of the warming will be based on top of CO2 caused warming. The natural factors are dominant however; viz 40's to 70's cooling with 350 ppm and rising CO2. How much the CO2 has warmed the planet will be apparent in 2030-2040 when the AMO hits the bottom again.

    2) The FSF win on both counts: i) showing that CO2 is not the *dominant* factor and ii) grinding their heel into your line about 'The problem is that they never provide any proof, or even evidence, that there is any connection between the current warming cycle and naturally occurring cycles.'

    Again, Chris, thanks for your donation. Your help in keeping the internet a free place and our computers free of NSA spyware is appreciated and St. Peter will be rewarding you with a good table (not the one by the toilets) when the time comes.

    Like

  9. Actually, the AMO Index is at least in part BASED upon NH Sea Surface Temperatures. In order words, it is more the effect of AGW rather than the cause…

    SDK

    Like

  10. Given that the AMO is in part based on the Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperatures, of course there is going to be a correlation between the two. Think you are confusing cause and effect here.

    Let’s be absolutely clear though, every scientist who believes that AGW is real also knows about the AMO. But yes, there still is disagreement within the scientific community as to the overall effect on the temperatures in the NH. Look at the second IPCC conclusion, and then realize that the term “most” was chosen for a very specific reason. So yes, if you can scientifically prove that the AMO is the dominant cause (i.e. more than 50%) of the temperature increase since 1950, you are likely to win a Nobel Prize. Go ahead.

    For reference, there was a very interesting debate among scientists just last year on the effects of the AMO on global SST. Three long pages of comments, but given your expertise (or hubris??) I am sure you are able to refute it all using the scientific method. About Dr. Tung attributing some 40% of warming over the last 50 years to AMO variations. (Notice it’s still under the 50% mark. And other scientists attribute even a much smaller effect…)

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1975

    Like

  11. Given that the AMO is in part based on the Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperatures, of course there is going to be a correlation between the two. Think you are confusing cause and effect here.

    Let’s be absolutely clear though, every scientist who believes that AGW is real also knows about the AMO. But yes, there still is disagreement within the scientific community as to the overall effect on the temperatures in the NH. Look at the second IPCC conclusion, and then realize that the term “most” was chosen for a very specific reason. So yes, if you can scientifically prove that the AMO is the dominant cause (i.e. more than 50%) of the temperature increase since 1950, you are likely to win a Nobel Prize. Go ahead.

    For reference, there was a very interesting debate among scientists just last year on the effects of the AMO on global SST. Three long pages of comments, but given your expertise (or hubris??) I am sure you are able to refute it all using the scientific method. About Dr. Tung attributing some 40% of warming over the last 50 years to AMO variations. (Notice it’s still under the 50% mark. And other scientists attribute even a much smaller effect…)

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1975

    Like

  12. I have a slightly different viewpoint on these proceedings. While I am not arguing that global warming is false I would like to argue about one of the reasons for it. Rather than greenhouse gases becoming the culprit in this I think that perhaps it is simple thermodynamics that is to blame.

    My reasoning is thus…

    Our atmosphere must maintain itself in some kind of equilibrium. The sun heats the side of the Earth currently facing it and excess energy is released through the atmosphere into space on the side not facing the sun (ie. hotter in the day cooler in the night). It does this without too many local variations.

    Now taking into account our atmosphere must only allow a limited amount of heat radiation transferal we must figure out where the excess heat radiation comes from. For that we really need look no further than pretty much every heat producing power plant in the world. It doesn't matter if it is coal, gas, or something that produces no greenhouse gases as a byproduct such as nuclear.

    All of the aforementioned energy production plants do have a very common emmision that is generally considered “harmless.” Steam. We “dig up” stored energy from the ground in the form of hydrocarbons or uranium and use them to superheat water to produce steam to turn our turbines and produce our electricity. After it has done it's job inefficiently we release the steam back into the atmosphere. Depending upon the plant this released steam can be of a quite high temperature. After that the name of the game becomes Entropy.

    All things seek a state of equilibrium. Put an ice cube into a cup of hot tea and the ice cube will melt while simultaneously lowering the temperature of the tea. Leave it long enough and the tea will eventually become the same temperature as the surrounding air and in a very small way the surrounding air will in turn be raised by the heat from the tea. In a very similar manner the steam will condense back to liquid water which is the primary state water is on this planet (excepting extremes such as cloud vapour and ice). All that heat has to go somewhere and as stated before our atmosphere is set up to allow limited amounts of energy exchange. So what does it do? It starts heating up our atmosphere causing water temperatures to begin rising and the ice in the tea to start melting in order to bring our closed system (ie. the Earth) into equilibrium.

    When you look back at the records of temperature increases this past century you can see a correlation to increased usage of burning fossil fuels to rising global temperatures. I am merely stating another viewpoint that it is thermal pollution rather than any gases that are to blame.

    Instead of asking ourselves what our carbon footprint is perhaps instead we should ask “What is my thermal footprint?”

    Like

  13. I am no denier that Change is occuring, quite the opposite in fact, I fully believe change is occuring and has been for longer than records have been kept and or fudged by both extremes of the equation.

    However you're challenge (unless you class man made as even a contribution) is mute, Climate change is not man made (and lets use climate change as opposed to “global warming” for the sake of totality)

    There is no question than Mankind contributes to climate change, however Climate Change is not Man-Made and that is fact, every publication from the side saying climate change is real does not claim it to be Man-Made, every article states Mankind contributes, the exact entent of this contribution is only ever estimated as it can not be exactly quantified for teh very reason that there are natural contributors which have never been denied and also go into the “equations” and science.

    So my point in this, you're challenge was to disprove Man-Made global warming, and honestly I believe this has been covered as climate change / global warming is not Man-Made, Man contributes but did not start the process or make it. If you wish to say Man-made can even be a portion then the far side nutjobs who claim its Nature would also have a point by saying man is part of nature and I don't buy that line for a second either.

    So you're challenge is either “Man-Made” as you claim, or “Contributed to by Man”

    If it is the former then that has been disproven, even by the affirmative side of Climate Change, as Man only has an effect on the process.

    Like

  14. This is fascinating. People are saying that we do have a contribution in climate change but ALSO that contribution is proven false? Sheesh. I love crazy people. 'I have no doubt that Thursday ends in Y, though science has completely proven that no days end in Y.'

    Like

  15. Rumrunner seems to have produced a more reliable graph than the current GCM's predictions.

    Let us know when the 10K arrives please. Thank you

    Like

  16. Christopher:

    “Science is about gathering evidence and then eliminating possibilities so that one ends up with a plausible scenario that explains one’s observations. If that cannot be accomplished, then a definitive conclusion is impossible.”

    I have listed at the following link 70+ possible influencing factors on the global temperature. If you can present a “plausible scenario” as a General Circulation Model (climate computer model) that accounts for and eliminates ALL other possibilities (including all feedbacks) other than anthropogenic, then you should be crowned king of all scientists for all time. However, since you cannot, and because “a definitive conclusion is impossible”, you can contact me through the website and I will let you know how to send me the $10,000.

    http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/nuclear-counterarguments-19/#ad

    Like

  17. Since you are entertaining dumb questions, let me ask you one. The models seem to have issues,is it possible they are over relying on the greenhouse effect and ignoring something simpler, but still man made?

    My 100 watt incandescent light maybe turns 10 watts into light, the other 90 watts is waste heat. To push the 100 watts to me, the power company generates 120 watts, the extra 20 go to line losses (some mechanical buy mainly heat) To generate that 120 watts, the fossil fueled power plant burns about 360 watts worth of energy ,240 lost to heat.

    So I've generated 350 watts of heat for 10 watts of light.

    A gallon of gas has maybe 35,000 watts of energy in it. If I burn a gallon of gas in my car, I maybe convert 10,000 watts to work, the other 25,000 is dumped overboard as heat.

    I guess what I'm asking is, if I'm camping out in the woods I sit by the fire to keep warm. If enough people are doing the same, sooner or later doesn't the forest get measurably warmer? Could this be part of the reason you get warming, but not running away warming as some models predicted?

    Like

  18. @Tom

    I think “cause and effect” is the wrong way of expressing it. Temperature change is the final “effect”, and the AMO is a measure of a cyclical “effect”. Something else entirely different is causing the AMO, and currently we haven't got a good handle on exactly what. What's certain is that this cycle has been going on for at least a thousand years quite naturally, and its variations track the modern global warming almost exactly.

    I know that other scientists think the AMO has had a large effect on modern temperatures. They're right.

    We know that the AMO is a natural variation of 0.555C (1F) in the atlantic – which is from the plot causes *at least* that change in atmospheric temperatures. We also know the “modern warm period” is warmer than previous temperatures by 0.8C and 1840 (CO2 280 ppm) was around the bottom of an AMO cycle and we're currently at a top (CO2 400ppm). So the underlying CO2 caused warming is 0.8 – 0.55 = 0.245C. From that it's trivial to work out the rough climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 (which would make it a triple win for the FSF if it were below 1.1C).

    So:

    dT = climate sensitivity factor x forcing

    {forcing for CO2 is 5.35 x natural log of the ratio of starting and ending CO2}

    0.245 = cs x 5.35 x ln(400/280)

    0.245 = cs x 1.9

    cs = 0.245 / 1.9

    cs = 0.13 (Compared to 0.8 for the IPCC figure)

    Then for 2 x CO2:

    dT = climate sensitivity factor x forcing

    dT = 0.13 x 5.35 x ln (2)

    dT = 0.476 C per doubling of CO2.

    Which is way way below the 1.1C of the no-feedback parameter of CO2. i.e. the feedbacks that are there are negative. Yey! It's a triple win for the FSF!

    Like

  19. Language is a funny thing. A lot of times we debate over the usage language instead of focusing on the actual topic of debate. How can we not debate the language used especially if the language used is misleading? That being said, you more or less shut yourself down on #2 above. You yourself claim that there is proof that climate change comes in cycles, and if we adhere to the science behind the cycles, then it would explain the current environment. So, you just said if someone could prove that this is true, then it would satisfy your argument. Case closed?

    Belief is reserved for faith (religion). Acceptance is reserved for facts. If the scientists behind man made global warming would at least attempt to prove themselves wrong (which CAN be done, HAS been done, and you've quoted everything already), and ACCEPT those facts, maybe we can have some common ground. I myself am not opposed to the idea that man is making a naturally changing environment worse (or at least more chaotic). But all the proof I've seen seems to be attempting to prove one side of the story while ignorantly denying the other side (something you man made global warming alarmists claim the deniers are doing). Are we harming the environment? Yep. Can we do better? Yep. But to start imposing global taxes and create a whole economic structure off the weather, is the biggest crock of man made poo i've ever heard of.

    Like

  20. Dear Christopher Keating,

    If you are serious about your $10,000 challenge, then I would be please to take it and to prove – conclusively – that there is no such thing as 'man-made global warming' – as I have stated repeatedly that it does not exist and cannot ever take place upon the Earth.

    As an expert forecaster, I am well acquainted with the Earth's climate and have proven it over the years with my advanced climate & weather forecasts.

    I state – conclusively – that to maintain that there is a such a thing as 'man-made global warming' is to state that pink elephants can fly. That means that according to the laws of physics, there is no such thing as human-induced global warming' as that is impossible.

    So, leaving behind all the hyperbole, the labelling, the ideology, name-calling, use of the term 'denier' and the politicization of the Earth's climate – let's get down to brass tacks on your $10,000 challenge and see if you actually walk your talk, shall we?

    Please visit me on solarcycle24.com where this can be done so that all is made clear on my statement that there is no such thing as 'man-made global warming.'

    You can reach me here ->>

    http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/2220/lie-man-global-warming

    Regards,
    Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci

    Like

  21. Christopher,

    What always got me is how scientist and the media never mention the positive effects anthropogenic climate change would bring if it was actually happening. The positive effects would outweigh the negative ones. It really makes you think what they are trying to scare us from? The climate has always changed naturally and will continue to do so. CO2 is not a driving factor in our climate. The earth is an open system. Even our position in the milky way effects the temperature here on earth. (cosmic rays) With the umbral magnetic field decline underway in solar cycle 24 there will be no more debate on this subject in just a few years.

    Like

  22. Paleo history shows us that CO2 has an extremely minor effect on temperatures, if it has an effect at all.
    The question always gets to the meat of the matter, “feedbacks”. The current GCM's did not indicate a “pause” in warming. There are some that say the heat is in the oceans, but what they fail to acknowledge is the units of measurement of OHC prior to ARGO are so statistically shoddy that that claim ranks right up there with the cow rubbing her udders on the moon.

    Folks who believe in AGW hook, line and sinker ignore the actual heat content of the atmosphere. The only true heat metric is a wet bulb temperature reading as the water vapor in the atmosphere is the true holder/releaser of heat. A recent paper from a Prof in Texas, after IPCC5, shows that AH has actually fallen for the past 15 years. This in effect would help explain the “pause”, as dryer air is colder than moist air by volume.

    The AGW folks have put forth a hypothesis. It has not climbed to the level of theory, as the current proof is lacking. CO2 continues to rise, temps are stable with a negative bias for the past 17 years.

    The proof that AGW, as currently understood, is very easy to see. The GCM's are 2 sigma out. In any scientific endeavor this is considered a failure of prediction values. Any wind tunnel providing information on aircraft wings, with the divergence shown at present, would be redesigned.

    The failure of the models predictive ability isn't bad. It just shows that we are all missing something extremely important in the assumptions that are used for the hydrological cycle in the models.

    The proof, that CO2 is a climate driver, is evident in the failure of the GCM's. Science is science, not good or bad. It is not wrong to admit mistake, learn from the mistake, and search for answers.

    Dr. Alfred Wegener would be proud if climate science did that. He was considered a charlatan, continents couldn't move. But now, we all know they do. Consensus is political, there is nothing scientific about it.

    Go eat some butter, help your heart and arteries. That is what is known now, verses even 20 years ago.

    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