$30,000 Challenge Submission – Hummingbirds

I will award, to Christopher Keating, 30,000 dollars of my own money, if he can prove via the scientific method, that humming bird caused global climate change is not occurring. The deadline for submission of proof is July 31, 2014

To: Tilo Reber

I could do that, but you are just trying to hijack my blog and the post. Your challenge is very childish and doesn’t prove any point. Not only could I prove that, but I am not going around making statements, contrary to science, that hummingbirds are responsible for climate change and that I can prove it. If deniers don’t like the challenge, then either stop saying you can prove man made global warming is not real, or prove that you really can prove it, as you claim. It is just that simple.



  1. Unlike you, skeptics are smart enough to know that anything, including hummingbirds, effect the climate. The effect may be so small that it cannot be easily meausured, but there must be an effect. The wording of your bet is a show of your cowardice because such a negative with no specific magnitude specified is impossible to prove. And since my bet is stated exactly like yours, you are simply blowing hot air, since you could never prove that hummingbirds have no effect on climate.

    The real issue, which you did not include as the limiting factor of your bet is what everyone is talking about when they talk about AGW. In other words, is man producing a dangerous amount of CO2 based warming. Attacking straw man “denialists” based on the straw man argument that there is no change at all is simply you grandstanding for you sycophants.

    If climate sensitivity is 1C per CO2 doubling or less, and given that the effect is logarithmic, then there is no reason for concern about man made climate change. Because that would mean that it takes 280 extra ppm for the first 1C, 560 ppm for the second 1C, 1120 for the third 1C, 2240 for the fourth 1C, etc.

    At this point in time it has not even been proven that feedback is positive. And unless there is significant positive feedback, there is no climate danger.

    Your bet is as childish and meaningless as your ideas about climate alarmism.


    No, hummingbirds have no effect on man made global warming because they are within the energy system of the planet. They do not produce energy, they only transform it from a source that has stored solar energy. So, on that argument alone, we can say hummingbirds are not contributing to climate change. They are already part of the climate. Your claim that they must be changing the climate is a false one.

    But, let’s look another way, how much energy they produce. For this exercise, let’s assume that they are adding energy to the environment, not just moving it around. That, of course, is not a valid assumption because any energy they emit had to come from the environment they are in, but let’s do it for the fun of it.

    There is no data on hummingbird population size, but lets assume its 100 billion hummingbirds worldwide. That is an unrealistically large number, especially considering that hummingbirds are nearly exclusive to the American continents, but it will work for the purpose of our examination. These hummingbirds merely take energy in from their food and turn it into heat via their metabolic rate. This heat is radiated into the natural environment as IR radiation. Hummingbirds cannot store enough energy to survive the night at their daytime metabolic rate, so they go into tupor state and their metabolic rate drops by a factor of 100. So, we will just round it off to zero for the night and round up on the other figures. If each hummingbird radiated 1200 calories per hour, and we assume a day of 12 hours, we get 6 x 10^15 joules (100 billion birds x 1200 calories per bird per hour x 12 hours x 4.186 joules per calorie). Let’s round up to 10^16 joules per day. Now, the amount of sunlight the planet absorbs every day is about 10^25 joules. That means the hummingbird energy emission is .0000001% of the total amount of daily incoming solar energy. In other words, in order to generate even one percent of the total solar energy input, there would have to be 10 million times as many hummingbirds as our unrealistically large number – 10^18 birds, or 1 quintillion birds. That would be about 6700 hummingbirds for every square meter of land area on the entire planet. We would literally be up to our armpits in hummingbirds! I mean, I love the little darlings, but there is such a thing as too much.

    Still, this amount of contribution, even using inflated numbers, is way beyond out ability to detect.

    So, we may safely conclude that hummingbirds do not cause global warming. In the words of the deniers – Where’s my check?

    I know you only made this silly bet to try and divert the challenge, but I proved the point for a reason. I wanted to show how these silly claims to try and undermine the challenge are irrelevant and are false arguments deniers make to try and get out of being held responsible for their statements.

    The challenge is to people that claim global warming is not real and they can prove it. Now, what they want to do is convince people that it is not possible to ‘prove a negative.’ That is just another false argument. What is ‘a negative’? Everything is a negative of something. I can prove the Sun is not in my backyard. That is a negative. I can prove that if a man gets his arm cut off, it will not grow back. That is negative. 

    Ultimately, deniers want to go around making statements they can’t support and don’t want to be held responsible for. That is why they don’t like the challenge.

    They should have thought about that before going around claiming they could prove man made global warming isn’t real.


$30,000 Challenge Submission – Greenhouse Gases Are Cleaned Out

When human beings extract and burn fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and others, we cause/trigger the release of carbon Dioxide and other heat-trapping “greenhouse gasses” into the atmosphere.

To get going with my latest finding on this issue; on this “challenge”, greenhouse gases undergo three main steps. To make it simple, let’s start with step 1

Step 1:

When gases are released from industries into the air, gases rise up. This rising of gasses occurs because of the process buoyancy, in which indoor-to-outdoor air density is different. Basically, at this stage, it involves greenhouse gases to move from bodies (either from cars, industries, trains etc.) into the atmosphere.

Step 2:

It was scientifically proven that the more you rise above the earth surface, the cooler you become. And this temperature almost drops at the rate of about 6.5 ˚C per km of the increased height inside the troposphere. When these emissions get into the atmosphere at their very top altitudes, they separate themselves in layers. These layers are made because of density differences of the gases and their chemical properties. For example, carbon dioxide gas would rise up to the approximate altitude and any other carbon dioxide coming will just combine/join that group right there. And then any other different greenhouse gas like Nitrous oxide will form a different layer that is either above/below that layer of carbon dioxide.

When all this is done, gases undergo a process called gas-condensation.

This process involves when gas particles are initiated by the formation of atomic/molecular clusters of that species within its gaseous volume. These clusters are usually small and form more like a dust, but at a very high altitude. When these gases form this dust like a cloud, we currently refer it to as global warming, instead of referring to it as a “gas cloud” because it is responsible of trapping heat between the atmosphere and earth surface.

Step 3

In this step, the local portion of the atmosphere on which the gas cloud was condensing forms small particles that actually fall off from that high altitude towards the earth surface. Too bad that it does not reach the earth surface, but at a certain height, these particles actually combine/mix with the surrounding air particles and forms a normal air. The gas-cloud that was forming global warming (acting like an earth heat trapping blanket) does no longer exist, but now it’s part of the cool fresh air surrounding us here.

Steps are now completed.

To make it clear, greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere precipitates out from the atmosphere. It does not stay there for the rest of the time to continue with the warming process. To scientifically prove this, it was proven that there are greenhouse gases that are referred to as a” short-lived greenhouse gases” which are the gases with a shorter atmospheric lifetime because they precipitates fairly quickly from the atmosphere. This is because it was proven that they do not stay there for a long time. It’s only that none of the scientist these days realized about the precipitation of the greenhouse gases that are exhaled into the atmosphere by the people.

In conclusion to this, we have known that nature itself has a way of controlling the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that after a thick cloud of greenhouse gases that people release from their factories and other machines is in the atmosphere, it precipitates out. Therefore, global warming is not forever. Just for example if the day time is cloudy enough at a specific location, the temperature increases in that region because clouds have trapped in the heat. But after the rain, everything becomes normal. Same applies to the effect on global warming.


There are many issues with this submission that makes it scientifically invalid. Let’s start at the beginning.

Step 1:
Gases do not move from indoors to outdoors because of differences in density. Unless the structure is hermetically sealed, the air pressure inside a structure must be equal to the air pressure outside. There are many reasons why gases move from one place to another in the atmosphere and wind currents are the number one reason. Hot exhaust gases are less dense and will rise to some extent, but the winds will mix them up given some time. The layer of air we live in is called the troposphere and extends to about 15 km above the surface. This varies depending on latitude with the height being less at the poles and greater at the equator.  A characteristic of the troposphere is how gases in this layer are nearly uniformly mixed by weather and winds. The density drops as you get higher, but the relative mixture stays pretty much the same. It is not until you get into the stratosphere and higher that gases begin to separate into layers.

Step 2:
Gas condensate occurs when there is a drop in pressure in a gas. It happens when the relative density of a mixture in the gas reaches a point where the principle gas cannot contain it (along the lines of 100% humidity). CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not subjected to this process in the atmosphere because it can take many years for them to be lifted to higher altitudes. The drop in pressure is, therefore, so slow as to be nearly constant pressure. Plus, even with rising CO2 levels, we are not anywhere near the saturation point of CO2 in the atmosphere. The best I can determine is that the condensate temperature for CO2 is in the minus-hundreds of degrees Celsius at atmospheric pressure. This warms up some as pressure drops, but is still somewhere around -100 degrees C even at a pressure of 10 mm (we are at 1000 mm for one standard air pressure).

So, there are no clouds of gas condensate. In fact, we know CO2 is well mixed within the atmosphere as a gas and we sample it on a routine basis, such as the station on Mauna Loa, Hawaii that gives us the Keeling Curve. We routinely survey the skies in various wavelengths and no CO2 clouds are detected. Obviously, these would be very easily detected in the IR wavelengths.

Global warming is caused when CO2 molecules absorb and then reemit IR radiation, slowing down the transit of that energy from Earth’s surface to space. Clouds of water vapor act as an insulator in much the same way and provide positive feedback in this manner. They also provide negative feedback by reflecting incoming sunlight back into space.

Step 3:
There is no large scale precipitation of CO2 gas condensates as you claim. In fact, by your claim, as this condensate precipitated and became pressurized it would revert to a gaseous state and is mixed back into the atmosphere. So, even with your gas condensate cloud hypotheses, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would have to go up.

It is true that greenhouse gases get removed from the atmosphere, but it takes time. For CO2, we are talking centuries, possibly even several thousands of years. But, eventually, it will be removed from the atmosphere. Other gases don’t last that long. They may remain in the atmosphere from a few years to a few centuries, depending on the gas. This removal occurs because the gas molecule gets washed out by the rain and absorbed somewhere, or it gets broken down by sunlight or chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

You are partly correct in your conclusion, although for the wrong reason. Nature does have a way of removing greenhouse gases and about 50% of man made emissions are removed by nature every year.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real.

$30,000 Challenge Submission – Ocean Warming is Due to Volcanoes

nonymousJuly 13, 2014 at 1:08 AM

Dear Professor Keating
The widely vaunted premise is that humans discharge Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere thereby causing the earth to heat unusually.

However, conventional science teaches us that the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere can be predicted by Henry’s Gas Law:

“At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.”

Henry’s Gas Law effectively states that the Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is wholly dependent on the average sea temperatures.

Unless we can prove that humans were directly responsible for increasing the temperature of the oceans, there is no possibility that humans have anything to do with the slowly rising concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, whether that rise causes the earth to warm or not.

The recently experienced slight lift in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide concentration is entirely due to a very small rise in average sea temperatures, which is most probably caused by minor changes in the level of submarine volcanic and tectonic activity. My backup presentation notes on this subject are available at http://www.bosmin.com/HenrysLaw.pdf with a more detailed presentation at http://www.bosmin.com/SeaChange.pdf
Best regards, BobBeatty@bosmin.com

Christopher KeatingJuly 6, 2014 at 10:13 PM

The oceans are heating from the top down, not the bottom up. That is enough to debunk everything you just said.

My Reply is:
Traditional science says “hot water rises”, so send the cheque.



  1. Sorry, even with that premise, the water would still have to be warmest near the energy source. If it was being heated by volcanoes and hot water vents, the hottest ocean water would be found down deep. In fact, the coldest water is found deep and the hottest is found at the surface. The temperature profile is consistent with heating occurring from above. It is being heated by the Sun and the atmosphere is acting as a blanket to keep the heat from radiating away as IR radiation.

    All you have provided is some statements without any scientific proof that what you say is valid and that it affects the issue of man made global warming, one way or another. Submit scientific evidence to support your claim and I will be glad to consider this a submission, although this issue has already by discussed in other submissions.


  2. No. The hottest water is found down deep and is reported to range from 60 to 464 oC at thermal vents. Lava erupting from submarine volcanic vents emerges at temperatures ranging from 700 to 1200 oC. This effect happens spasmodically all along the Mid Atlantic Ridge. The cold water you refer to is replacing the rising hot water as it does in a pot heating water on a stove.

    As you say, the sun also heats the surface water and seasonal variations cause the sun to warm and cool sea surface waters alternately between the two hemispheres. This results in carbon dioxide migrating between the hemispheres each year, as shown on the “saw tooth” NOAA graphs. My calculation shows this migrating flux is around 1.7Gt per year as shown in the “seachange report” referred to previously. However, the underlying up trend in the NOAA graph is caused by a recent slow increase in background heat coming from some of the many possible submarine sources.

    The main flaw in your AGW argument is that the sea has to heat BEFORE there is any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, as per Henry’s Law, so CO2 cannot affect the earth’s surface temperature, if in fact it does, until after the sea has heated.


    The first fatal flaw in this line of reasoning is that it requires volcanic activity under the oceans to be increasing. Our data indicates it has remained about constant over the last several decades that we have been witnessing the oceans getting warmer.

    But, let’s loot at this quote and plot from UC- San Diego:

    The circulation of the cold water sphere is poorly known. The water is cold because it “originated” in high latitudes, where the surface waters these in cold regions were cooled, sank, and filled up the deep ocean basins. This process is constantly happening, and without it the abyssal waters would be warm in a few thousand years from the Earth’s heat flow through the ocean floor. If waters sink at high latitudes, they must rise at low latitudes. They do so at an overall rate of about 1 cm/day. Most of the abyssal bottom water of the world ocean “originates” ( i.e. sinks from the surface) around Antarctica. The other important deep water source is the northernmost North Atlantic (the Norwegian Sea and Labrador Sea). This is know from mapping the temperature and oxygen content of near-bottom water. As the water moves away from its surface source (i.e. as it “ages”) it gradually warms. Also, it slowly loses oxygen because of the respiration of organisms in the deep sea. Thus, “young” water is cold and oxygen-rich, “old” water is less cold and has less oxygen. Most of the deep water in the Atlantic is young, while that of the North Pacific is old. 

    This plot (from the same source) shows the temperature profiles for high latitudes (polar regions) on the right, mid-latitudes in the middle and low latitudes (equatorial regions) on the left. Notice how the temperature is warmest at the surface (the top of each plot) and gets colder as the depth increases.

    Source: UCSD

    This should be enough to end the discussion. Are there volcanoes under the ocean? Yes, and they heat up the local water. Is there heat coming through the surface of the sea floor? Yes, and given time it will heat up the water that is in contact with it. Is this amount of heating significant? No. The temperature profiles and the discussion in the quote above both illustrate that ocean water gets cold at the poles, sinks down deep, and travels along until it is force back up to the surface. The principle source of heating is from the Sun and the oceans get hotter from the top down.

    But, we don’t need to stop there. Let’s look at the total amount of energy needed to heat up the oceans and compare that to the amount of heat coming from volcanoes.

    Take a look at this graph from the EPA that shows the amount of heat stored in the oceans (heat content):

    Line graph showing three different estimates of how the amount of heat in the ocean changed from 1955 to 2013.
    Source: EPA

    We can see that the ocean heat content increased from about 0 joules in 1980 (the normalized baseline) to about 12 x 10^22 joules by 2012. That is a change in heat content of 12 x 10^22 joules of energy that was in the oceans in 2012 that wasn’t there in 1980.

    So, how about the energy released by volcanoes?

    The explosion of Mt St Helens in 1980 released about 7 megatons of energy. That is approximately 3 x 10^16 joules. In other words, it would take 4,000,000 Mt St Helens-sized explosions  over 32 years to put that much energy in the oceans. That comes out to about 340 Mt St Helens-sized eruptions occurring every day for 32 years.

    Sorry, but the facts and evidence do not support this claim. Here is a website at Oregon State I found that pretty much stated the same thing.

    You did not prove man made global warming is not real. 


$30,000 Challenge Submission – Issue With Central CO2 "Evidence"


Richard Alley: “We can’t explain the size of warming without CO2.”

While now reviewing many sceptic arguments against CO2 as a dramatic climate driver, lets not forget how surprisingly weak arguments FOR the CO2 effect is.
And check out how easy it is debunked:


This picture is from a Richard Alley speech with presentations.
He shows the Vostok ice core CO2 – temperature data. He is NOT (like Al Gore) indicating that we can see CO2 drive temperatures from these graphs, he goes one step further.
He says that the large differences of temperature on Earth cannot occur without assistance from changing CO2 concentrations.
And ladies and gentlemen, this “argument” today appears to be the central and fundamental argument for CO2 as a dramatic climate driver.

So is it true?

Take a very good look at the Vostok ice data on the picture I linked to. In the upper right corner I have inserted the graphs so one can better see data. I have also inserted a green box.

The years of data enclosed in the green box actually show a rather constant CO2 level for the years where the Earth changes temperature completely from interglacial to glacial.

So, the very data behind Richard Alley happens to show exactly that temperature CAN change from one extreme to the other without help from CO2.

So the very data Richard Alley use to proof that CO2 is a “must” to explain large temperature changes shows the opposite, that nature does this without help from CO2.

Its not only the last shift from interglacial to glacial that occurs mostly without help from CO2, see:

The most important “evidence” for the CO2 effect thus simply is not there.

Kind regards, Frank Lansner


Once again, you relied on Anthony Watts. And, I’ll say it again – If you ever use Watts for a reference, you’re going to be wrong.

Your issue is that the CO2 level and temperature plot are not 100% correlated. 95% doesn’t mean anything to you, it has to be 100% or it means nothing at all. In other words, you’re going to reject science because it isn’t 100% to your liking. I think that shows the influence Watts has had on you and that is unfortunate. Try someone credible next time. The problem with this complaint is that you have left out a massive amount of facts. But, the record shows Watts and his buddies aren’t real big on facts.

Past climate warming cycles have begun with some kind of naturally occurring trigger, typically the Milankovitch cycles, which increase the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth. The problem is this extra energy is not enough to have melted the glaciers and caused the warming that occurred. But, it was enough to begin releasing the CO2 trapped in the oceans. This extra CO2 then became the principle driver of warming by trapping extra heat, which leads to additional water vapor in the atmosphere (itself an excellent greenhouse gas). As the Milankovitch cycle continues, the amount of solar energy reaching Earth begins to decrease, leading to lower temperatures. The atmosphere can no longer hold the extra water vapor (hot air can hold more water vapor than cold air) and it precipitates out, taking the CO2 with it and leading to a further temperature decline.

Now, there is nothing new about any of this. In fact, scientists had predicted exactly this decades before it was actually found in the paleoclimate record. There is an excellent video that details this whole story and shows the actual scientific papers. By the way, he shows just how deceptive Anthony Watts is. The video is only about 13 minutes long. If you are at all interested in the facts, you owe it to yourself to watch it. In fact, you owe it yourself to watch the entire series.

In summary, my interpretation of your statement is that you claim CO2 cannot be the cause of global warming because the CO2 level does not exactly follow the temperature record. I have shown your premise is wrong and the reality is that this is exactly what scientists expected to find.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real. 

$30,000 Challenge Submission – Basic CO2 Forcing Issue


The Basic CO2 Forcing issue

Its always healthy to take a “birds perspective” of things, just to ROUGHLY get an idea of the situation.

Normally its believed that CO2 (incl feedbacks) is responsible for around 15% of the Earths Greenhouse effect. It cannot be much more since we live on a planet with a water surface and thus plenty of water in the atmosphere. So water (incl feedbacks) is responsible for the majority of Earths greenhouse effect.

The whole idea of global warming started because the Earth appeared around 33 K warmer (278 K) than “it should have been” (255K) given the Earths albedo.
So all greenhouse gasses incl. all feedbacks combined yields roughly these 33 K.

No news so far, I agree.

This ROUGHLY leaves around 15% of 33K to the CO2 forcing incl. feedbacks. That is around 5 K. Lets say 6 K to be conservative.

So as a ROUGH starting point we have around 6 K of warming from CO2 forcing incl feedbacks from CO2 in tha atmosphere.

Still not much new in this, so lets go a step further.

If you take a climate model like MODTRAN you will see that the forcing of the entire CO2 concentration (incl feedbacks) is typically around 9 – 10 times the forcing of one CO2 doubling incl. feedbacks.

So according to typical models, ONE doubling of CO2 should yield around a tenth of the forcing seen from the entire CO2 concentration in the atmosphere incl. feedbacks.

The entire CO2 concentration should have a forcing that matches roughly 10 doublings.

So as a starting point – the rough birds perspective – a new doubling og CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm should yield around one tenth of the 6 K warming we have from the entire CO2 concentration.

So a doubling should yield warming around 1/10 times 6 K = 0,6 K.

Something is wrong now.

IPCC suggests 3 K for just ONE new CO2 doubling. That is, today ONE doubling should have an effect incl. feedbacks of HALF the entire CO2 concentration.

This is a violation of the principle that each doubling has a similar effect.

James Hansen goes further, he suggests 6 K of forcing from jus ONE doubling of CO2. So one doubling today for some reason should match the effect incl. feedbacks from the entire CO2 concentration.

Also, some believe that we will have a global temperature rise of 2-4 K within year 2100.
But hardly any believe that we will have more than 600 ppm in year 2100. (even 600 ppm appear not realistic)
So with just HALF a doubling, we are supposed to see a 2-4K rise in temperature. This demands arounf 4-8 K warming effect from CO2 incl. feedbacks.
Again this demands that the next CO2 doubling incl. feedbacks has an effect around 10 times the other doublings incl. feedbacks.

The point.

As long as it is NOT explained why CO2 effect incl. feedbacks added to the atmosphere now should have an effect dramatically stronger than the CO2 already in the atmosphere, then any such claim fall.

You cannot claim that one doubling of CO2 now should have an effect that roughly matches the entire CO2 concentration in the atmosphere without very carefully explaining, documenting and justifying how this should be possible.
So far this obvious problem is not even mentioned when claiming dramatic forcing from CO2 incl. feedbacks.

See illustrations and more:



I will start with your ending – referencing Anthony Watts on anything. If you do that, there is a very high probability you are wrong. See my response about your previous submission for more details about Watts.

But, let’s go back to the beginning of your submission when you say that CO2 is responsible for only 15% of the greenhouse effect. This is false it two ways. First, CO2 is responsible for about 1/3rd (33%) of the warming, but it is the principle driver because the main greenhouse gas is water vapor and that vapor wouldn’t be there if CO2 wasn’t raising the temperature in the first place. So, CO2 is actually the principle driver of the greenhouse effect. So, using your own math, the result of doubling CO2 would be about 1.5 degrees C. But, there are many other factors involved, most noticeably the water vapor. Another very major factor is what happens to cloud formation. Clouds are a negative feedback in the day time by reflecting incoming sunlight, but a positive feedback at nighttime by trapping IR radiation leaving the surface. And, how does the cloud formation change with temperature and water vapor? It all becomes very complicated very quickly and the question of clouds is the wild card in this whole process.

In short, you tried to use a simple calculation to make a definite calculation for a very complicated system. The fact that you number does not agree with forecasted results is not surprising or controversial.

But, the bottom line is if you are going to rely on Watts for you information, you will always have problems. Garbage in, garbage out.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real.

$30,000 Challenge Submission – Mountain Valleys


    Dear Christopher,

    I am: Frank Lansner, chemical civil engineer with focus on biochemistry from Danish Technical University. I have worked the last 16 with software development.

    I have to follow my hunch, and it tells me that you are actually sincere about this challenge. My hunch also tell me that you might not accept a really good presentation of evidence against Human caused global warming, simply because “pro-IPCC” scientists normally don’t.

    But still, your approach here is very personal and different, so who knows, perhaps you are actually going to be open fair and honest. So, I’m curious, and in the following I present to you severe problems for the AGW hypothesis.

    I “know” I won’t see money, so from me this is not about money. I’m interested to see your responses, simply. Am I going to make any impression to you at all? Lets see.

    PROOF 1


    As explained in this article we have a surprising problem in data when finally it was possible to get hands on original temperature data from original meteorological year books.

    The proof against global warming is NOT that we generally see more cold trended long temperature series from original sources than typical “adjusted” sources. We do, but this is no itself a proof about anything.

    No the surprising proof is as follows:

    For ALL countries analysed using original temperature data (not massively adjusted my “GISS” or “BEST” or similar) it turns out that temperature stations with a location in shelter of air coming from oceans show hardly any warming after the last warm period 1930-50.
    The better the shelter (typically behind mountains, in valleys and similar) the less warming. In some very well sheltered areas it appears to be colder today than during the last warming period 1930-50.

    These findings goes for the areas/continents tested so far in the “original temperatures” project and the RUTI project.

    So, what does it tell us that areas that is located rather near mountains in shelter of ocean air?

    First it raises the question:
    How come “CO2” seems not to work after approx. 1940 without the presence of ocean air? Why cannot CO2 warm such areas? If it was indeed a strong climate driver?

    Well IF CO2 had been a strong climate driver and human addition of CO2 was important we should have seen warming after around 1940 also in the valleys sheltered best from ocean air. But we don’t.
    So here I could end my case, because dangerous CO2-effect already appear wrong at this point.
    I want you to first consider this first evidence just as is. In a real “Earth laboratory” where changes in ocean air temperature “noise” is avoided best possible, there is little or no warming. Sometimes even cooling after the warm 1930-50 period.



    But let’s go a little further, simply to understand what’s going on. Why the missing “valley-warming”?

    The Earth surface today is generally warmer than in the warm period 1930-50.

    Coastal temperature stations and mountain stations facing ocean winds also show this warming, but in such stations affected by ocean air we see that the warm-period 1930-50 is not nearly as warm as seen for the valley stations.

    So, the heat measured in valley stations 1930-50 resembles present day heat. But something is preventing this heat to show in data from water-affected stations.

    Water – oceans or deeper lakes – will buffer rapid temperature changes resulting from a new heat balance of the Earth. Water will reduce the temperature change from a changing heat balance. Water will delay the temperature change due to a new heat balance over the Earth.

    It seems that after the little ice age that ended around 1900-20, the rapid change in heat balance around 1930-50 could only be detected in the valleys best protected against “delay-noise” from oceans.

    This is why Valleys do show us the new much warmer heat balance that began around 1930-40, but ocean affected stations don’t.

    Since the temperature of the best sheltered valley stations show same temperature today as 1930-50, then this tell us that the actual heat balance over the Earth today is similar to the 1930-50 levels – before massive human CO2 outlets.

    The warming seen in recent decades over oceans and from ocean affected stations thus appear to be a delayed adaption to the new heat balance that began around 1930-40.
    So falsely it looked in recent decades as if the heat balance due to CO2 was still warmer. But it was just the oceans that were slow to adapt.

    OK, dear Chris.
    Before claiming that you can’t see this when you look up stations in BEST and GISS etc. please be aware that these sources of temperature information often adjusts temperature stations in valleys to look like station data from near by mountain tops, coast, larger cities. And in many cases the 1930-50 data from valley stations are simply just not used.

    Notice that the Majority of for example original Alpine stations (around 90 of 150) are valley stations with little or no heat trend, so its quite a severe action to ignore the valleys at times, see:

    Hungary is SURROUNDED by mountains, see original data – and how it is ignored by “BEST”:

    In Denmark, only a few coastal stations are really public available, and then the metropol Copenhagen, but, see what original inland data from old books show:
    And so on.
    In general, see how treats all data from valleys from all countries analysed:

    In general it seems that temperature stations in valleys for some reason are very unreliable? According to BEST?

    So in short my proof 1:
    If CO2 had a dramatic effect since around 1950, this should also result in strong heat trend from temperature stations located in the valleys best sheltered from ocean air temperature trends.


  3. wops, words missing:

    So in short my proof 1:
    If CO2 had a dramatic effect since around 1950, this should also result in strong heat trend from temperature stations located in the valleys best sheltered from ocean air temperature trends. But all over the world we see that the best the valleys best sheltered against ocean air show little or no heat trend. Sometimed even a cooling trend after around 1930-50.

    Kind Regards Frank Lansner


  4. Im very sorry, my child danced on the keyboard while im writing… ! one more time the final lines:

    So in short my proof 1:
    If CO2 had a dramatic effect since around 1950, this should also have resulted in a strong heat trend from temperature stations located in the valleys best sheltered from ocean air temperature trends.

    But all over the world we see that the valleys best sheltered against ocean air show little or no heat trend. Sometimed even a cooling trend after around 1930-50 like in the US midwest.

    Kind Regards Frank Lansner


    You started out with a link to a link to a post by Anthony Watts. Watts is one of the people that I automatically reject as a source of information – and for very good reason. First, he receives funds from The Heartland Institute. This is an organization whose very own internal documents shows they fund people for the directed purpose of undermining climate science. That is enough for me to reject him and I use that standard on a routine basis. Anyone associated or affiliated with Heartland in any way is not a credible source. 

    But, there is more. My take of the evidence is he fabricates his results. That would be consistent with being affiliated with Heartland. Take a look at a review of some of his work here.

    Finally, consider this: When Richard Muller questioned the global average temperature results from the international teams, he set up his own team to examine the question using completely different data. Watts said this:

    “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.”

    But, when the Berkeley Earth team confirmed the results of the international teams, Watts rejected those results and was quoted by the NY Times:

    “Mr. Watts … contended that the study’s methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness.”

    Really!!?? Global warming isn’t real because there were some spelling errors???!!!!

    There is a lot more on Watts, but I think I made the point. If you are going to base anything on Watts, then you have already failed in your proof.

    As for ‘getting our hands’ on the data – it is freely available to anyone with Internet access at the National Climatic Data Center. In fact, several submissions have cited the NSDC as the source of their data.

    On to the next issue. You say CO2 is only warming the climate in certain areas and not in others (simplifying your words). Take a look at this NASA GISS plot of temperature changes over the entire globe and I think you will imediately see how that is not a true statement:
    As you can see, with the exception of a few areas, global warming has been happening just about everywhere. There are some regions that have been experiencing more (the polar regions) than others (the equatorial regions), but it is present in all regions of the planet. In particular, the oceans have experienced the least amount of warming. This is because it takes over 4 times as much energy to raise the temperature of a given mass of water as it does to raise the temperature an equal amount in an equal mass of air.
    Now, are there specific areas that have not experienced global warming? Certainly. And, this is very consistent with our understanding. The climate is very complicated and there are many factors besides man made greenhouse emissions. It is not at all surprising to find some local area that has experience reduced warming, or even cooling. 
    But, the thing to remember is that ‘global warming’ means the entire globe. A very localized area does not, in any way, mean global warming is not happening. 
    As for the oceans making things more level – absolutely! Oceans absorb 93% of all energy coming into our environment. It takes a lot of energy to heat the oceans and it is very slow to give it up. It has been well known for thousands of years that the climate near the ocean is much less extreme than the climate far from the ocean.

    My understanding is that you are claiming man made global warming is not real because some mountain valleys are not exhibiting as much warming as other regions. Well, you admitted the data for those areas are questionable. I don’t know this and my experience tells me to reject your claim, but you made the claim the data is bad, but then used that same data to make your point. You can’t have it both ways.

    In short, your claim is that the majority of the planet has experienced global warming, but some isolated areas, in your opinion, have not exhibited the amount of global warming that you think is appropriate. The claim that a small area trumps what is happening in the rest of the world is not valid.

    You have not shown man made global warming is not real.

$30,000 Challenge Submission – Interglacial

  1. Post 1 of 10

    As individual post length is limited to 4096 characters, and my submittal spans almost 33,000 characters, the entire submittal will be about 10 posts, numbered 1 through 10. Whereas I took care to provide proper links to the research papers I quoted from, this site objects to web addresses it claims contain “illegal characters”. In honor of such superior intellect, I have deleted all links from my submittal. After 13+ hours of preparing this submittal, with links to the source papers, provision of those links will require a more intelligent blog engine than this. I am not going to bother, after 1am, to try and construct the attributions in text for so many scholarly quotations as I have included here. I can indeed provide the links, but not on so prissy a forum as this.

    The reason I am posting as anonymous is that according to whatever data this weblog is connected to, I do not own the WordPress identity I have owned for many years now. The hoops one must jump through to distribute knowledge, sheesh!



    1. One thing we can agree on is I need a more intelligent blog engine. I am stuck with this one for now, but it will be something to remember in the future.


    AnonymousJuly 8, 2014 at 5:02 AM

    A Challenge to Keating’s Challenge
    By William F. McClenney, CA-PG #4430

    The Keating Challenge, as stated is:

    “I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring”

    That, of course, would be attempting to prove a negative. But how about this for an even more dramatic challenge:

    “Let’s assume that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, would you still be willing to stake the winner if he/she were to prove that the correct thing to do about it is anywhere from maintaining current anthropogenic GHG emissions to actually increasing them?”

    In addition, I will also present powerful arguments why AGW may not matter at all. So please be certain that we all have the Operating Assumption down pat: anthropogenic emissions of GHGs can cause a positive thermal excursion in earth’s climate. In fact, if I may say so, we had all better hope and pray that this assumption is correct.

    I will be quoting copiously from the peer-reviewed literature, providing links to every paper I can. I will attempt to keep this as brief as possible, however the areas of discussion require you to either already have a solid background in the subjects, or be willing to acquire that knowledge by taking some of the “sidetrips” to other locations where this knowledge may be gained.


    It would be one thing if we were having this discussion say a few thousand years after the Holocene Climate Optimum, when producing a positive thermal climate excursion might very well rank as a potential problem for humanity. Unfortunately, for the proponents of AGW, the Holocene is presently 11,717 years old as of c.e. 2014. That might be one of the more ominous numbers you will ever encounter. The Holocene Epoch is the 9th interglacial that has occurred since what is known as the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, or MPT.

    “The emergence of low-frequency, high-amplitude, quasi-periodic (~100-kyr) glacial variability during the middle Pleistocene in the absence of any significant change in orbital forcing indicates a fundamental change internal to the climate system. This middle Pleistocene transition (MPT) began 1250 ka and was complete by 700 ka.”

    During the MPT the period between interglacials went from being paced by the obliquity (or tilt) of our axis of rotation (~41kyrs) to being paced by eccentricity (~100kyrs) which is the variability of our orbit around the sun from near a circle to its most elliptical or “eccentric”. Eccentricity has a second order period of ~400kyrs between each maximum or each minimum. But it is the third orbital variable which comes into play at this exact moment in time, the precession cycle, which varies between ~19-23kyrs.

    Here is when we live. We are presently at one of the 400kyr eccentricity minima. As the MPT is generally discussed as centering around ~800kyrs ago (kya hereon), then it too occurred at an eccentricity minima, as did the Holsteinian Interglacial (also known as Marine Isotope Stage [MIS] 11) which occurred around ~400kya. We are also at the 23kyr node of the precession cyclicity. Seven of the last 8 interglacials back to the MPT, achieved interglacial warmth for about half a precession cycle. And that is


  2. Post 3 of 10:

    what makes the number 11,717 so ominous. 11,500 is half of 23,000. That means, boys and girls, that we are once again at a possible end interglacial, also known as glacial inception.

    That’s right, glacial inception. Bet you didn’t see that one coming.

    SIDETRIP 01:

    The sidetrip above provides extensive documentation relating to the End Holocene debate. Bet you didn’t know it was a debate either. Actually, the debate over the probable length of the Holocene began at the same time the AGW debate did, and from exactly the same data. We will tune in on this debate with Dr. Wallace S. Broecker, arguably the father of modern paleoclimatology, in a question posed as the title of his fascinating paper:

    “The End of the Present Interglacial: How and When?” Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 17

    “Despite the large decline in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation during the last 8000 years, neither sea level nor polar temperatures have as yet undergone any significant downturn. This behavior is consistent with the prediction by Kukla and Matthews (1972) that the Holocene interglacial will terminate suddenly with a jump to another of the climate system’s modes of operation. This is what happened at the end of the last period of peak interglaciation. However, complicating the situation is evidence that ice sheet growth during the transition from marine stage 5e to 5d preceded the shut down of the Atlantic’s conveyor circulation which is thought to have brought Europe’s Eemian to a close.

    “However, it must be kept in mind that the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases may alter the natural course of events.

    “With this new information in hand, three questions come to mind.
    (1) Were previous intervals of peak interglaciation terminated by abrupt global coolings?
    (2) How close are we to the end of the present interval of peak interglaciation?
    (3) Will the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases alter the natural sequence of events?”

    You should be able to guess where this is going. This is by no means a falsification of the AGW hypothesis. It is but the beginning of a powerful argument that either eviscerates or obviates the entire AGW discussion.

    Ulrich Muller and Jorg Pross, writing in Quaternary Science Reviews 26 (2007) sum this nasty little problem up neatly:

    “The possible explanation as to why we are still in an interglacial relates to the early anthropogenic hypothesis of Ruddiman (2003, 2005). According to that hypothesis, the anomalous increase of CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere as observed in mid- to late Holocene ice-cores results from anthropogenic deforestation and rice irrigation, which started in the early Neolithic at 8000 and 5000 yr BP, respectively. Ruddiman proposes that these early human greenhouse gas emissions prevented the inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”

    In 2009 Crucifix and Rougier ask:

    “We will illustrate our case with reference to a debate currently taking place in the circle of Quaternary climate scientists. The climate history of the past few million years is characterised


  3. Post 4 of 10:

    by repeated transitions between `cold’ (glacial) and `warm’ (interglacial) climates. The first modern men were hunting mammoth during the last glacial era. This era culminated around 20,000 years ago [3] and then declined rapidly. By 9,000 years ago climate was close to the modern one. The current interglacial, called the Holocene, should now be coming to an end, when compared to previous interglacials, yet clearly it is not. The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed natural cycles.

    “On one side, Professor Bill Ruddiman carefully inspected and compared palaeoenvironmental information about the different interglacial periods. This comparison let him to conclude that glacial inception is largely overdue [4, 5]. According to him, the Holocene was not supposed to be this long, but the natural glacial inception process was stopped by an anthropogenic perturbation that began as early as 8,000 years ago (rice plantations and land management by antique civilisations). On the other side, Professor Andre Berger and colleagues developed a mathematical model of the climate system, rated today as a `model of intermediate complexity’ [6, 7] to solve the dynamics of the atmosphere and ice sheets on a spatial grid of 19 x 5 elements, with a reasonably extensive treatment of the shortwave and longwave radiative transfers in the atmosphere. Simulations with this model led Berger and Loutre to conclude that glacial inception is not due for another 50,000 years, as long as the CO2 atmospheric concentration stays above 220 ppmv [8]. Who is right?”

    This warrants repeating: “The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed natural cycles.”

    You see, if the IPCC et al. are right about CO2/AGW, then Ruddiman is probably right: if it were not for AGW we would already be in a now overdue (or due now) glacial. And that makes what to do about AGW a very interesting question indeed!

    Rohling et al (2010) chime in with this:

    Finally, the alignment shown in Fig. 4 (which is similar to that of Ruddiman, 2005, 2007) exemplifies a completely different, more controversial (Spanhi et al., 2005; Siegenthaler et al., 2005), possibility. It has been argued that variability in the planetary energy balance during Pleistocene glacial cycles was dominated by greenhouse gas and albedo related feedback mechanisms, and that the role of insolation was limited to only triggering the feedback responses (Hansen et al., 2008). Hence, the apparently anomalous climate trends of the most recent 2.0-2.5 millennia should also be investigated in terms of changes in these feedback responses due to processes other than insolation, including controversial suggestions concerning man’s long-term impacts from deforestation and CH4 and CO2 emissions (Ruddiman, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007; Hansen et al., 2008). There is support from modelling studies that the relatively minor early anthropogenic influences may have been sufficient to delay glacial inception (Vavrus et al., 2008; Kutzbach et al., 2009).

    It’s not much of a mental leap to realize that stripping a “climate security blanket” capable of preventing or mitigating glacial inception from the half-precession old Holocene interglacial might be inviting the tipping point known as glacial inception. Even if the IPCC et al. are right and Ruddiman is wrong, the question is the same. Remove AGW GHGs etc. from the late Holocene atmosphere and take your chances with glacial inception.

    What you should be able to realize here is that the appropriate response to AGW in the middle of an interglacial might be the exact opposite of what to do at an end interglacial.


  4. Post 5 of 10:

    Those happy to take their chances with what may be an already overdue glacial and risk glacial inception by reducing AGW/GHGs to whatever late Holocene concentration you prefer, plunk down here.

    What sense does it make to even consider removing trace gases with purportedly the power to perhaps delay or ameliorate glacial inception? Those that just realized being right about CO2/AGW means we may need to do a U-turn on policy plunk down here. We may already have a glacial inception insurance policy aka CO2/AGW.

    You are allowed to change your mind at any time.

    In either the “Do Something” or “Do Nothing” cases, you may wish to consider the following:

    “Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..”

    “The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”

    Sirocko et al (A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception, nature, vol. 436, 11 August 2005, doi:10.1038/nature 03905, pp 833-836)

    In case this was not clear, all we may need do is nothing about CO2/AGW for the next ~4,000 years to perhaps cheat glacial inception.

    In summing up this section, the entire AGW debate might actually be just that simple. GHGs either can or cannot mitigate glacial inception. It is no more complicated or simple than that. Period.

    a) If GHGs can get us over the next ~4,000 years of glacial inception risk, then why are we having this discussion at all?

    b) If GHGs can’t vault us across the next ~4,000 years of glacial inception risk, then why are we having this discussion at all?

    Not falsified, obviated.

    As you might expect, it actually does get worse than you think.


    In this section we will look at two essentially insurmountable obstacles to AGW, signal to noise ratio (SNR) and the climatic “madhouse” known as Glacial Inception (GI). Either one obliterates any concern whatsoever related to AGW. The reference standard chosen to represent the absolute worst case of AGW is the IPCC’s Assessment Report 4 (2007)

    SIDETRIP 02:


  5. Post 6 of 10:

    Your attention is drawn to Figure 10.33 from page 821 of Chapter 10 of AR4. SRES marker series A1F1 is the IPCC’s worst case “business as usual” scenario in which we do nothing about CO2/AGW in terms of the absolute measure of climate change, relative sea level (RSL). The median value of A1F1 comes in at +0.425 meters by 2099, or about +1.4 feet above present day mean sea level ( or amsl). If we use the upper error bar for A1F1 as the ultimate absolute worst case, we get about +0.6 meters (about 2 feet) amsl by 2099.

    So the upper error bar of the worst case “business as usual” scenario from the gold standard of climate science, the IPCC, is +0.6 meter relative sea level rise by 2099. This is the ultimate AGW “signal”, so do take note here.

    Is that a lot?

    Actually, the more intelligent question might be:

    Can we even detect our worst case CO2/AGW “signal” at an end interglacial/glacial inception?

    Which brings us to yet another debate taking place in the paleoclimate community you have probably heard nada about: What is glacial inception like?

    You see, the problem here, of course, is “noise”. Neuman and Hearty (1996) spell it out for us:

    “The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”.

    Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) abstract it for us:

    “In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.” [emphasis mine] Hearty and Neumann (Quaternary Science Reviews 20 [2001] 1881–1895) abstracting their work in the Bahamas state:

    “The geology of the Last Interglaciation (sensu stricto, marine isotope substage (MIS) 5e) in the Bahamas records the nature of sea level and climate change. After a period of quasi-stability for most of the interglaciation, during which reefs grew to +2.5 m, sea level rose rapidly at the end of the period, incising notches in older limestone. After brief stillstands at +6 and perhaps +8.5 m, sea level fell with apparent speed to the MIS 5d lowstand and much cooler climatic


  6. Post 7 of 10:

    conditions. It was during this regression from the MIS 5e highstand that the North Atlantic suffered an oceanographic ‘‘reorganization’’ about 11873 ka ago. During this same interval, massive dune-building greatly enlarged the Bahama Islands. Giant waves reshaped exposed lowlands into chevron-shaped beach ridges, ran up on older coastal ridges, and also broke off and threw megaboulders onto and over 20 m-high cliffs. The oolitic rocks recording these features yield concordant whole-rock amino acid ratios across the archipelago. Whether or not the Last Interglaciation serves as an appropriate analog for our ‘‘greenhouse’’ world, it nonetheless reveals the intricate details of climatic transitions between warm interglaciations and near glacial conditions.” [emphasis mine]

    From a dozen such Eemian studies from around the globe, Hearty et al (2007) provide on Figure 2 a worldwide range of sea level highstands, predominantly identified at the End Eemian, ranging from +6.0 meters to +45.0 meters amsl. Lysa et al (2001) extend the possible end-Eemian climate noise envelope to +52.0 meters amsl:

    “The Arkhangelsk area lies in the region that was reached by the northeastern flank of the Scandinavian ice sheet during the last glaciation. Investigations of Late Pleistocene sediments show interglacial terrestrial and marine conditions with sea level up to 52 m above the present level.”

    And then there’s Bausch and Erlenkeuser’s (2008) “”critical” climatic evaluation of last interglacial (MIS 5e)”:

    “As has been stated previously on the basis of some of the records from core M23055 (Bauch et al 1996), the main 5e-ss [5e sensu stricto – the authors] of the last warm period in the Nordic seas occurred within the upper part of the MIS 5e interval, and the warmest phase occurred towards its very end (see also Haake & Pflaumann 1989).”

    We are now up to a possible 2 strong positive thermal excursions right at the end of the last interglacial, the Eemian, as it was undergoing glacial inception. Upon closer inspection, that second, stronger highstand itself may have had 11 negative thermal excursions with potentially 8 positive thermal excursions right at the end Eemian:

    “This implies a total sea-level change of at least 6-7 m occurred during the fall and subsequent rise between Units 2 and 3. Besides, this remarkable fall of sea level promoted a renewed input of pebbles fed to the coast, probably trough fluvial incision and erosion of older beach deposits. Our conclusion is that sea level rose and fell repeatedly during the second highstand of MIS 5e, reaching similar elevations a.s.l., and depositing Units 2 and 3 and their various subunits.”

    Their conclusions:

    “Evidence of rapid changes of sea level during the second MIS 5e highstand, comparable to the “sustained MIS 5e highstand” with a duration of 10 +/- 2 ka, has been recognized in a prograding barrierspit system located at La Marina-El Pinet (Alicante). Detailed sedimentological analysis allowed differentiating three orders of sealevel fluctuations.

    “The largest-scaled fluctuation is recorded as the conspicuous erosion surface (IV) and the associated increase in grain size that divides deposits of the second highstand in two morphosedimentary units: Unit 2 and Unit 3. It involved a minimum total sea level variation of 6-7 m.


  7. Post 8 of 10:

    “These units include eight prograding subunits separated by less prominent erosion surfaces. Petrographic analysis of marine sediments below and above the surfaces revealed that subaerial exposure took place after deposition of each subunit. In our interpretation, the erosion surfaces are the result of repetitive relatively slow falls of sea level followed by rapid sea-level rise. The minimum amplitude deduced for fluctuations is 2 m, which represents a total change (fall and subsequent rise) in sea-water of 4 m. After each fall and erosion the sea level rose to similar topographic elevations. We propose a millennial or submillennial periodicity (∼1 ka) for these fluctuations, and disregard storm surges as a likely generating mechanism. The large magnitude of the repeated sea-level fluctuations suggests a contribution by rapid ice sheets melting and build-up.

    “The smaller-scaled (tens of centimeters) order of oscillations of sea level has been recognized inside the subunits from shifts of the foreshore and uppermost shoreface facies, and a decadal periodicity is suggested.”

    One need take care to process all of that data up to this point. Out of two strong positive pulses frequently reported for the end Eemian glacial inception phase, the second and stronger one actually had “8 prograding subunits”. Interpretation: during the third, final and highest sea level highstand at the end Eemian there were 8 “repetitive relatively slow falls of sea level followed by rapid sea-level rise” of about 4 meters.

    One can only hope that this is sinking in. Somehow, we are going to have to be able to detect an AGW “signal” of +0.6 meters amsl from as many as maybe 8 rapid oscillations hovering between 1 to almost 2 orders of magnitude greater sea level rise estimates (+6.0 to +52 meters amsl) for the end-Eemian. Both large pulses, and the eight sub-pulses within the second large pulse, wildly exceeded anything so far prognosticated by AGW.

    The Eemian, being the next youngest interglacial in the record, is also the best preserved and therefore of the best resolution. Even so, if we take a look at the ends of the other two post-MPT interglacials which also occurred at an eccentricity minima, the climatic “madhouse” picture is just about as grim.

    Consider this contribution from Desprat et al (2005) as regards the end-Holsteinian (MIS-11 to -12 glacial inception):

    “The Marine Isotope Stage 11 interglacial, centered at ~400 ka, appears to be the best candidate for understanding climatic changes in the context of low insolation forcing such as that of our present interglacial. Direct correlation between terrestrial (pollen) and marine climatic indicators and ice volume proxy from deep-sea core MD01-2447 (off northwestern Iberia) shows for the first time the phase relationship between southwestern European vegetation, sea surface temperatures in the northeastern Atlantic midlatitudes and ice volume during MIS 11. A warmest 32,000 years-long period and three following warm/cold cycles occurred synchronously on land and ocean. The end of the warmest period sees the glacial inception…..”

    and this from Pol et al (2010):

    “During the glacial inception from MIS 19 to MIS 18, the low resolution EPICA Dome C water stable isotope record (Jouzel et al., 2007) has revealed millennial variability principally marked by the occurrence of three consecutive warm events (hereafter called Antarctic Isotope Maxima — AIM, following EPICA-community-members, 2006, and noted A, B, C on Fig. 2).”

    SIDETRIP 03: Glacial Inception:


  8. Post 9 of 10:

    For some this might seem to be a lot of science, but it is also necessary for the record and section argument of evisceration and obviation of the entire climate discussion. Any AGW component of climate change, at such a time as a half precession cycle old interglacial, is most-likely irrelevant. By itself the SNR problem is staggering. The upper error-bar of the worst case IPCC AR4 scenario yields the maximum AGW “signal” of +0.6 meters amsl by 2099. This is the “signal” we are charged to detect from the climatic “madhouse” known as glacial inception. Which has, and could again, consist of from at least 2 (often 3) major positive thermal excursions with perhaps as many as 8 lesser cycles of sea level rise and fall within just the second, last, and strongest major excursion attending the last glacial inception.

    How is it we are to even notice the IPCC-AR4 upper error-bar SRES marker A1F1 AGW scenario, coming in at +0.6 meters amsl, which is ten times (an order of magnitude) less than the lowest estimate of +6.0 meters amsl, for the final Eemian highstand? Want to go apples to apples, +0.6 vs. +52.0 meters amsl rise, AGW clocks-in at just 1.15%, a “signal” almost 2 orders of magnitude lower than the “noise”! Signal Processing experts feel free to chime in here. I don’t know how to detect a future AGW “signal”, the exact characteristics of which we don’t know yet because it hasn’t happened yet, from normal natural end interglacial/glacial inception background climate “noise” levels 1 to nearly 2 orders of magnitude higher, and of which there might be 2 to 8 such.

    This simply cannot be taken seriously.

    Consider that the +0.425 to 0.6 AGW median to worst case scenario is 4 to 6 “tens of centimeters:

    “The smaller-scaled (tens of centimeters) order of oscillations of sea level has been recognized inside the subunits from shifts of the foreshore and uppermost shoreface facies, and a decadal periodicity is suggested.”

    What? Decadal periodicity is suggested for “The smaller-scaled (tens of centimeters) order of oscillations”? Might that include 4 to 6 “tens of centimeters”? And might that not obviate the worst case AGW scenario of 6 “tens of centimeters”? You might want to have a long think about that.


    “I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring”

    This, obviously, I have not done, in any way, shape, or form. Instead, I eviscerated, obviated and neutered the entire climate change discussion. Meaning, strictly using the “scientific method”, I just rendered any question regarding “man-made global climate change” utterly moot and trivial:

    1) GHGs either can or cannot mitigate glacial inception. They either have or have not already done so. It is no more complicated or simple than that. Period. Meaning, of course, that removing CO2/GHGs to some policy level might tip us into the next glacial. We only need to make it another ~4,000 years or so until insolation begins to rise again. The only thing in the air that makes that possible is if you and the IPCC are right about AGW/CO2/GHGs. If wrong, then none of that matters. In case you hadn’t noticed yet, being right about AGW/CO2/GHGs actually means we might “skip a precessional beat” like MIS-11 did, and end up with another extended interglacial, if we do nothing about it/them.


  9. Post 10 of 10:

    2) Is +0.6 meters amsl all you got? I’ll see your +0.6 meters amsl rise by 2099 and raise you tenfold to the lowest estimate of the sea level highstand, +6.0 meters amsl. Notice I did not call…. You consult your AGW hand (the “Gorical”) and you then “see” my raise of +6.0 meters amsl and raise pot to say 21.3 meters amsl, the final MIS-11 highstand resulting from the 3rd and final positive thermal excursion of that interglacial (which, of course, was not instigated by AGW) and call. I lay down my cards. I’ve got a +45.0 and a +52.0 meter highstand flush. AGW cannot beat such a hand.
    3) And you would be the wiser not to try. Because none of this climate change discussion we are having even matters regardless if we are right or wrong about CO2/GHGs/AGW. We are either overdue for glacial inception or we are due now. Whenever the end Holocene finally does arrive, if it is even in our power to let it, we are probably assured of the climatic “madhouse” that is glacial inception. Replete with abrupt, orders of magnitude stronger positive thermal excursions.

    You see, by merely adopting the meme that AGW/CO2/GHG emissions can trap and store heat, for maybe thousands of years if we stop emitting right now, by that same token we might have already obviated glacial inception. And maybe can continue for the next ~4,000 years or so.

    Or might your preference actually be glacial inception?

    Are you now aware how easily the AGW argument can be turned on its head? You see, the far more menacing problem is not if one “can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring”, but that “The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed natural cycles.” A decades old debate you have probably heard nothing about, until now.

    The $30,000 question regards proving that man-made global climate change is not occurring. Disregarding that one cannot prove a negative, we can adopt the premise that not only can man-made climate change occur, it may already have prevented glacial inception and could possibly do so well into the future, hopefully the next ~4,000 years or so.

    The AGW meme is therefore reversed, using nothing but the scientific method itself. AGW is real? Fine. OK. Now take the AGW/CO2/GHG “pollution” out of the late Holocene atmosphere so Mother Nature can maybe get on with her, perhaps overdue, if not due now, next glacial inception. And be quick about it!

    “This is why the past million years has been essentially a continuing ice-age, broken occasionally by short-lived interglacials. It is also why those who have engaged in lurid talk over an enhanced greenhouse effect raising the Earth’s temperature by a degree or two should be seen as both demented and dangerous. The problem for the present swollen human species is of a drift back into an ice-age, not away from an ice-age.”

    Stated famous astronomer Fred Hoyle on CCNet back in 1999 (sorry, the link no longer works).

    In the final analysis, only being right about AGW/CO2/GHGs makes any difference whatsoever. Consider Sole, Turiel and Llebot, writing in Physics Letters A 366 (2007), pp. 184–189:

    “There are different works that relate the CO2 air concentration with temperature changes, supposing that CO2 may [12] or may not drive this temperature increase [20]. In this work ice-core CO2 time evolution in the period going from 20 to 60 kyr BP [15] has been qualitatively compared to our temperature cycles, according to the class they belong to. It can be observed in Fig. 6 that class A cycles are completely unrelated to changes in CO2 concentration. We have


  10. Post 11 of 10:

    Yeah, that’s right, 11 (so far) of 10. See what happens when one opts for a weak blog engine as this one?

    observed some correlation between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming. This could explain why cycles not coincident in time with maxima of CO2 (A cycles) rapidly decay back to the cold state.”

    In juxtaposition to your challenge to “anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring”, I have proven that if you are right about AGW/CO2/GHGs, you simply could not be more wrong concerning what to do about it/them at the now 11,717 year old Holocene.

    Again, and for the prize, GHGs either can or cannot mitigate glacial inception. Period.

    a) If GHGs can get us over the next ~4,000 years of glacial inception risk, then why are we having this discussion at all?

    b) If GHGs can’t vault us across the next ~4,000 years of glacial inception risk, then why are we having this discussion at all?

    And again, and for the prize again, I bet you didn’t see that one coming…….

    The question is what is such an education worth? $30k?

    I can only hope so…….


    I still find it amazing how many deniers are trying to weasel out of the challenge with an attempt to redefine it. It is my challenge and I get to define it. Deniers keep complaining about how it is impossible to prove a negative (it isn’t), but they keep telling people they can do just that. This challenge is for all of those deniers that keep saying man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. So, here’s your chance to do just that. If it is, in your words, impossible to prove a negative, then why do deniers keep telling the public they can do just that? If you can’t prove it, stop telling people you can. That is the whole purpose of the challenge.

    The issue of what to do about global warming is another issue. Once all the deniers agree that man made global warming is real and they stop trying to deceive the public, then we can move on to the next discussion.

    Your entire submission consisted of saying a new ice age is imminent (over even overdue) and we need to be more concerned with that than with global warming. I looked over your submission and I have all sorts of issues and think it is flawed, but that isn’t what this challenge is about. I will point out the fatal flaw of your submission is your dependence on the 23,000 year number. Ice ages don’t come and go like trains. There is not schedule. Besides that, there are all sorts of very serious flaws in your argument. You really need to go back and do your homework.

    Now, in regards to proving man made global warming is not real, we have a decision in your own words:

    This, obviously, I have not done, in any way, shape, or form.

    We have found something we agree on.