The Climate Challenge

[Sunsettommy]

From Just prove CO2,

The Climate Challenge

Excerpts:

"On 12 November 2015, Dr. Peter L. Ward issued a Climate Challenge offering to give $10,000 from his children’s inheritance to the first person or team of people who can demonstrate through direct measurements in the laboratory and/or in the field that a 15% increase in carbon dioxide, such as that observed from 1970 to 1998, can actually cause more warming of Earth’s surface temperatures than caused by observed contemporaneous depletion of the ozone layer of up to 60%. The experiment must be reproducible.

This challenge was sent by email to more than 2000 scientists who wrote or reviewed the 2013 IPCC Physical Basis Report and was issued to the media and on the web. No one has shown any serious interest."

and,

"The only direct experiments documented in the scientific literature were done by Knut Ångström in 1900, one in the Canary Islands and one in the laboratory. Both experiments showed that increasing CO2 concentrations had little effect on air temperature."

====================================

It has been nearly FOUR years since challenge was posted, has anyone taken the challenge to produce Direct measurements from Laboratory or in the Field to answer Dr. Wards detailed challenge??

 

[Billy_Bob]

The experiment I and 4 others did shows conclusively that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere in the absence of or with low levels of water vapor. The bands of energy that are emitted from this gas posses no power to warm the atmosphere in these regions absent water vapor.

There will be no takers as the physics is clear in this matter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

From Just prove CO2,

The Climate Challenge

Excerpts:

"On 12 November 2015, Dr. Peter L. Ward issued a Climate Challenge offering to give $10,000 from his children’s inheritance to the first person or team of people who can demonstrate through direct measurements in the laboratory and/or in the field that a 15% increase in carbon dioxide, such as that observed from 1970 to 1998, can actually cause more warming of Earth’s surface temperatures than caused by observed contemporaneous depletion of the ozone layer of up to 60%. The experiment must be reproducible.

This challenge was sent by email to more than 2000 scientists who wrote or reviewed the 2013 IPCC Physical Basis Report and was issued to the media and on the web. No one has shown any serious interest."

and,

"The only direct experiments documented in the scientific literature were done by Knut Ångström in 1900, one in the Canary Islands and one in the laboratory. Both experiments showed that increasing CO2 concentrations had little effect on air temperature."

====================================

It has been nearly FOUR years since challenge was posted, has anyone taken the challenge to produce Direct measurements from Laboratory or in the Field to answer Dr. Wards detailed challenge??

Looks like the science really is settled

 

[BlindBoo]

The hole in the ozone layer is in the Southern Hemisphere. Why is the most dramatic warming occurring the Arctic?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The hole in the ozone layer is in the Southern Hemisphere. Why is the most dramatic warming occurring the Arctic?

Ocean currents... Which just turned cold this year... Watch what happens now... Were below the freezing point of salt water now.

 

[BlindBoo]

The hole in the ozone layer is in the Southern Hemisphere. Why is the most dramatic warming occurring the Arctic?

Ocean currents... Which just turned cold this year... Watch what happens now...

Good. It's the middle of August we need some relief...........

 

[BuckToothMoron]

From Just prove CO2,

The Climate Challenge

Excerpts:

"On 12 November 2015, Dr. Peter L. Ward issued a Climate Challenge offering to give $10,000 from his children’s inheritance to the first person or team of people who can demonstrate through direct measurements in the laboratory and/or in the field that a 15% increase in carbon dioxide, such as that observed from 1970 to 1998, can actually cause more warming of Earth’s surface temperatures than caused by observed contemporaneous depletion of the ozone layer of up to 60%. The experiment must be reproducible.

This challenge was sent by email to more than 2000 scientists who wrote or reviewed the 2013 IPCC Physical Basis Report and was issued to the media and on the web. No one has shown any serious interest."

and,

"The only direct experiments documented in the scientific literature were done by Knut Ångström in 1900, one in the Canary Islands and one in the laboratory. Both experiments showed that increasing CO2 concentrations had little effect on air temperature."

====================================

It has been nearly FOUR years since challenge was posted, has anyone taken the challenge to produce Direct measurements from Laboratory or in the Field to answer Dr. Wards detailed challenge??

AGW climate alarmist have never been able to produce any model that proves any of their theories.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From Just prove CO2,

The Climate Challenge

Excerpts:

"On 12 November 2015, Dr. Peter L. Ward issued a Climate Challenge offering to give $10,000 from his children’s inheritance to the first person or team of people who can demonstrate through direct measurements in the laboratory and/or in the field that a 15% increase in carbon dioxide, such as that observed from 1970 to 1998, can actually cause more warming of Earth’s surface temperatures than caused by observed contemporaneous depletion of the ozone layer of up to 60%. The experiment must be reproducible.

This challenge was sent by email to more than 2000 scientists who wrote or reviewed the 2013 IPCC Physical Basis Report and was issued to the media and on the web. No one has shown any serious interest."

and,

"The only direct experiments documented in the scientific literature were done by Knut Ångström in 1900, one in the Canary Islands and one in the laboratory. Both experiments showed that increasing CO2 concentrations had little effect on air temperature."

====================================

It has been nearly FOUR years since challenge was posted, has anyone taken the challenge to produce Direct measurements from Laboratory or in the Field to answer Dr. Wards detailed challenge??

AGW climate alarmist have never been able to produce any model that proves any of their theories.

Models abound that re-enforce their failed hypothesis. Its empirical evidence and their models failing to mirror reality that is the problem..

 

[Sunsettommy]

The hole in the ozone layer is in the Southern Hemisphere. Why is the most dramatic warming occurring the Arctic?

Does this mean you can't answer this question from post one?

It has been nearly FOUR years since challenge was posted, has anyone taken the challenge to produce Direct measurements from Laboratory or in the Field to answer Dr. Wards detailed challenge??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who collected the reward today?

 

[SSDD]

Who collected the reward today?

The same person who has been collecting it since the challenge was issued.....a guy called nobody..

 

[BlindBoo]

The hole in the ozone layer is in the Southern Hemisphere. Why is the most dramatic warming occurring the Arctic?

Does this mean you can't answer this question from post one?

It has been nearly FOUR years since challenge was posted, has anyone taken the challenge to produce Direct measurements from Laboratory or in the Field to answer Dr. Wards detailed challenge??

Seems pretty limited. CO2 levels have increase more than 15% as observed between 1970 and 1998. I'm not saying that the depletion of the ozone layer isn't contributing to the warming.

 

[BlindBoo]

The experiment I and 4 others did shows conclusively that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere in the absence of or with low levels of water vapor. The bands of energy that are emitted from this gas posses no power to warm the atmosphere in these regions absent water vapor.

There will be no takers as the physics is clear in this matter.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS OF CARBON DIOXIDE – Climate Change

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

Klaus Lackner, physicist and a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, is developing technology that would remove carbon from the atmosphere.

“The remarkable conclusion is that no matter how you look at it, sooner or later you will have to stabilize the CO2 in the atmosphere at some level. It practically means that we have to drop back in CO2 emissions to practically nothing,” he said.

Like Lackner, Columbia geochemist Sidney Hemming believes that rising levels of carbon dioxide are an obvious and serious problem.

“It’s physics. It’s not arguable that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. It seems to me that there’s no question that CO2 is rising,” she said. Once you understand the physics of the gas, “then you pretty much have to accept that raising the constituent is going to raise the temperature,” she said.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The experiment I and 4 others did shows conclusively that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere in the absence of or with low levels of water vapor. The bands of energy that are emitted from this gas posses no power to warm the atmosphere in these regions absent water vapor.

There will be no takers as the physics is clear in this matter.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS OF CARBON DIOXIDE – Climate Change

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

Klaus Lackner, physicist and a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, is developing technology that would remove carbon from the atmosphere.

“The remarkable conclusion is that no matter how you look at it, sooner or later you will have to stabilize the CO2 in the atmosphere at some level. It practically means that we have to drop back in CO2 emissions to practically nothing,” he said.

Like Lackner, Columbia geochemist Sidney Hemming believes that rising levels of carbon dioxide are an obvious and serious problem.

“It’s physics. It’s not arguable that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. It seems to me that there’s no question that CO2 is rising,” she said. Once you understand the physics of the gas, “then you pretty much have to accept that raising the constituent is going to raise the temperature,” she said.

Bwhaaaaaaa

She conflates a CO2 only with CO2 mixed....

A common mistake made by just about all scientists. CO2 @ 400ppm is so sparse that it can not warm as its collides with other molecules in the atmosphere and release their energy before they can warm. O2 can not warm with LWIR @ 12-16um. LWIR at this bandwidth passes through our atmosphere and does literally nothing until it interacts with water vapor, which can hold and use the energy to warm. The collisions with water vapor are what warm the atmosphere...

Its a very basic concept that many just fail to grasp..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The experiment I and 4 others did shows conclusively that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere in the absence of or with low levels of water vapor. The bands of energy that are emitted from this gas posses no power to warm the atmosphere in these regions absent water vapor.

There will be no takers as the physics is clear in this matter.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS OF CARBON DIOXIDE – Climate Change

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

Klaus Lackner, physicist and a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, is developing technology that would remove carbon from the atmosphere.

“The remarkable conclusion is that no matter how you look at it, sooner or later you will have to stabilize the CO2 in the atmosphere at some level. It practically means that we have to drop back in CO2 emissions to practically nothing,” he said.

Like Lackner, Columbia geochemist Sidney Hemming believes that rising levels of carbon dioxide are an obvious and serious problem.

“It’s physics. It’s not arguable that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. It seems to me that there’s no question that CO2 is rising,” she said. Once you understand the physics of the gas, “then you pretty much have to accept that raising the constituent is going to raise the temperature,” she said.

Odd. SSDD I didn't see an experiment in the above. Did you?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The experiment I and 4 others did shows conclusively that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere in the absence of or with low levels of water vapor. The bands of energy that are emitted from this gas posses no power to warm the atmosphere in these regions absent water vapor.

There will be no takers as the physics is clear in this matter.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS OF CARBON DIOXIDE – Climate Change

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

Klaus Lackner, physicist and a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, is developing technology that would remove carbon from the atmosphere.

“The remarkable conclusion is that no matter how you look at it, sooner or later you will have to stabilize the CO2 in the atmosphere at some level. It practically means that we have to drop back in CO2 emissions to practically nothing,” he said.

Like Lackner, Columbia geochemist Sidney Hemming believes that rising levels of carbon dioxide are an obvious and serious problem.

“It’s physics. It’s not arguable that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. It seems to me that there’s no question that CO2 is rising,” she said. Once you understand the physics of the gas, “then you pretty much have to accept that raising the constituent is going to raise the temperature,” she said.

Odd. SSDD I didn't see an experiment in the above. Did you?

I did see ANY science at all, just a bunch of words, some that are truly idiotic:

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

CO2 doesn't trap anything, it simply slows down the removal of ENERGY from the atmosphere. CO2 can't prevent "heat" from being radiated out because CO2 doesn't absorb heat in the first place, it absorbs Infrared Light.

This so called physicist make several elementary errors about CO2, it must be the "vapors" that did it.

 

[BlindBoo]

The experiment I and 4 others did shows conclusively that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere in the absence of or with low levels of water vapor. The bands of energy that are emitted from this gas posses no power to warm the atmosphere in these regions absent water vapor.

There will be no takers as the physics is clear in this matter.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS OF CARBON DIOXIDE – Climate Change

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

Klaus Lackner, physicist and a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, is developing technology that would remove carbon from the atmosphere.

“The remarkable conclusion is that no matter how you look at it, sooner or later you will have to stabilize the CO2 in the atmosphere at some level. It practically means that we have to drop back in CO2 emissions to practically nothing,” he said.

Like Lackner, Columbia geochemist Sidney Hemming believes that rising levels of carbon dioxide are an obvious and serious problem.

“It’s physics. It’s not arguable that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. It seems to me that there’s no question that CO2 is rising,” she said. Once you understand the physics of the gas, “then you pretty much have to accept that raising the constituent is going to raise the temperature,” she said.

Odd. SSDD I didn't see an experiment in the above. Did you?

I did see ANY science at all, just a bunch of words, some that are truly idiotic:

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

CO2 doesn't trap anything, it simply slows down the removal of ENERGY from the atmosphere. CO2 can't prevent "heat" from being radiated out because CO2 doesn't absorb heat in the first place, it absorbs Infrared Light.

This so called physicist make several elementary errors about CO2, it must be the "vapors" that did it.

Infrared light accounts for nearly half of the earths heat.

 

[SSDD]

The experiment I and 4 others did shows conclusively that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere in the absence of or with low levels of water vapor. The bands of energy that are emitted from this gas posses no power to warm the atmosphere in these regions absent water vapor.

There will be no takers as the physics is clear in this matter.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS OF CARBON DIOXIDE – Climate Change

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

Klaus Lackner, physicist and a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, is developing technology that would remove carbon from the atmosphere.

“The remarkable conclusion is that no matter how you look at it, sooner or later you will have to stabilize the CO2 in the atmosphere at some level. It practically means that we have to drop back in CO2 emissions to practically nothing,” he said.

Like Lackner, Columbia geochemist Sidney Hemming believes that rising levels of carbon dioxide are an obvious and serious problem.

“It’s physics. It’s not arguable that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. It seems to me that there’s no question that CO2 is rising,” she said. Once you understand the physics of the gas, “then you pretty much have to accept that raising the constituent is going to raise the temperature,” she said.

Odd. SSDD I didn't see an experiment in the above. Did you?

I did see ANY science at all, just a bunch of words, some that are truly idiotic:

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

CO2 doesn't trap anything, it simply slows down the removal of ENERGY from the atmosphere. CO2 can't prevent "heat" from being radiated out because CO2 doesn't absorb heat in the first place, it absorbs Infrared Light.

This so called physicist make several elementary errors about CO2, it must be the "vapors" that did it.

Infrared light accounts for nearly half of the earths heat.

Ask any engineer who designs infrared heating systems...they will tell you that infrared radiation does not, and can not warm the air.. They have about a million hours of design, testing, observation, and commercial and residential installations to prove it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The experiment I and 4 others did shows conclusively that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere in the absence of or with low levels of water vapor. The bands of energy that are emitted from this gas posses no power to warm the atmosphere in these regions absent water vapor.

There will be no takers as the physics is clear in this matter.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS OF CARBON DIOXIDE – Climate Change

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

Klaus Lackner, physicist and a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, is developing technology that would remove carbon from the atmosphere.

“The remarkable conclusion is that no matter how you look at it, sooner or later you will have to stabilize the CO2 in the atmosphere at some level. It practically means that we have to drop back in CO2 emissions to practically nothing,” he said.

Like Lackner, Columbia geochemist Sidney Hemming believes that rising levels of carbon dioxide are an obvious and serious problem.

“It’s physics. It’s not arguable that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. It seems to me that there’s no question that CO2 is rising,” she said. Once you understand the physics of the gas, “then you pretty much have to accept that raising the constituent is going to raise the temperature,” she said.

Odd. SSDD I didn't see an experiment in the above. Did you?

I did see ANY science at all, just a bunch of words, some that are truly idiotic:

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

CO2 doesn't trap anything, it simply slows down the removal of ENERGY from the atmosphere. CO2 can't prevent "heat" from being radiated out because CO2 doesn't absorb heat in the first place, it absorbs Infrared Light.

This so called physicist make several elementary errors about CO2, it must be the "vapors" that did it.

Infrared light accounts for nearly half of the earths heat.

Not in the very limited band of 12-16um.. That region accounts for just 2.3% OF THE TOTAL ENERGY EMITTED FROM THE EARTH.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The experiment I and 4 others did shows conclusively that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere in the absence of or with low levels of water vapor. The bands of energy that are emitted from this gas posses no power to warm the atmosphere in these regions absent water vapor.

There will be no takers as the physics is clear in this matter.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS OF CARBON DIOXIDE – Climate Change

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

Klaus Lackner, physicist and a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, is developing technology that would remove carbon from the atmosphere.

“The remarkable conclusion is that no matter how you look at it, sooner or later you will have to stabilize the CO2 in the atmosphere at some level. It practically means that we have to drop back in CO2 emissions to practically nothing,” he said.

Like Lackner, Columbia geochemist Sidney Hemming believes that rising levels of carbon dioxide are an obvious and serious problem.

“It’s physics. It’s not arguable that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. It seems to me that there’s no question that CO2 is rising,” she said. Once you understand the physics of the gas, “then you pretty much have to accept that raising the constituent is going to raise the temperature,” she said.

Odd. SSDD I didn't see an experiment in the above. Did you?

I did see ANY science at all, just a bunch of words, some that are truly idiotic:

“I think one thing that escapes common attention, is that it is warming because there are more greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, and that those essentially trap infrared radiation. they prevent heat from being radiated out,” said atmospheric physicist William Boos of Yale University.

CO2 doesn't trap anything, it simply slows down the removal of ENERGY from the atmosphere. CO2 can't prevent "heat" from being radiated out because CO2 doesn't absorb heat in the first place, it absorbs Infrared Light.

This so called physicist make several elementary errors about CO2, it must be the "vapors" that did it.

Infrared light accounts for nearly half of the earths heat.

No, it is the SUN that provides 99+% of the energy into the Ocean waters which in turn warms the air, this is a well known cycle you warmists always ignore or more likely IGNORANT of.

Here is what happens if you REMOVE CO2 from the "heat" budget, from The Inconvenient Skeptic:

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

Selected Excerpt:

If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.

Since the Earth’s temperature is ~287K, the temperature of the Earth without CO2 would be ~286K.

Water Vapor would pick up part of that negligible loss. Warmists have long been stupid as hell over the CO2 influence, since it is a TRACE gas, with a TRACE spectral absorption range, with a TRACE effect on the "heat" budget.

Here is why I say that, from Atmosphere Physicist James Peden website, The Global Warming Hoax?

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

bolding mine

LINK

===

Since the OLWR is mostly outside of the CO2's main band, it actually absorbs very little energy at all. CO2 has never been more than a bit player in the energy budget.

You are so far off it is funny..........