Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change

[Crick]

I think if you could disprove that:

1) Humans are responsible for more than 75% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750

or that

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas

or that

3) Added CO2 is responsible for more than 75% of the global warming experienced since 1750

I think you could, at the very least, talk a judge into handing the money over to you. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Crick]

Was this:

crick/abe-y displays boundless ignorance.

supposed to have some relevance in response to this?

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. I've listed several before. Let's see:

1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.

You must first prove that increased CO2 causes warming. CO2 has increased steadily for damned near the past 20 years and the climate hasn't warmed...in fact, it may have cooled a bit.

You don't seem to get how this works. Several of you have repeatedly charged that AGW was so ill-defined that it was unfalsifiable and therefore pseudoscience. I was listing here, as I have done elsewhere, obvious falsifications of AGW. I was not making a case for AGW. I was proving that it is easily falsifiable - were it false. Showing that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases would falsify the theory's contention that human activity is the primary cause of our observed warming. That you cannot show any of these tests to fail is not the fault of the test, it's the fault of your position. AGW is valid.

Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared

So called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit...that is neither trapping and doesn't cause warming. Quantify the greenhouse effect, show actual observed measurements of it in the atmosphere.

This mantra of yours: "absorbing and emitting is not warming" is specious and has become tiresome. I asked you some time back to explain how radiative heat transfer works in SSDD-world, but I didn't see a response. Let's make this simple. I've put a turkey in the oven. All three heat transfer functions will take place: conduction, convection and radiation. But we'll just concentrate on radiation for now. The burner at the bottom of the stove is red hot, perhaps 1500F. The turkey is initially at room temperature. Both are radiating but, of course, there's a lot more energy going from the burner to the bird than vice versa. So the bird, not being that perfectly mirrored version they sold down at Sharper Image, absorbs a significant amount of infrared radiation. This radiative transfer takes place solely at the skin of the bird, since neither did I pick up the transparent turkey so fashionable last year. But the increased temperature of the skin is transferred inward via conduction. So that absorbed radiation causes the bird's temperature to rise.
Even when it was room temperature, the bird radiated to its surroundings. Now that its temperature is rising, the amount of IR radiation its emitting is increasing. Fortunately for those of us who don't like our turkey bloody pink, it is not radiating away heat as quickly as it's picking it up. Some of this has to do with the heat its also picking up through conduction from the air in the stove, but mostly it has to do with the continuing delta-T between the skin of the turkey and that 1500F burner element sitting underneath it.

Despite the fact that it is both absorbing and emitting IR (;-)), the bird DOES accumulate thermal energy and its temperature does rise. Your meme is crap. Your batting average at basic and fundamental functions of physical science is still a perfect .000.

Show that any IR is being trapped.

Okay.

AND

TOA measurements show that outgoing long wave is increasing.

That only indicates that, Surprise! Surprise!, the Earth is getting warmer. The imbalance between energy in and energy out shows, irrefutably, that the Earth is accumulating solar energy and is warming. See Net radiative imbalance and ocean heat content increase in POGA-H and HIST. : Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

..absorption and emission do not equal trapping...and do not equal warming.

I'd love to hear you try to explain this meme someday, but for now, it's still specious and even more tiresome.

There has been no warming now for almost 2 decades and perhaps some cooling while CO2 has increased...LW escaping at the TOA is increasing which coincides with the cooling over the past 2 decades

Bullshit.

The temperature has a been increasing for 14K years....the industrial revolution coincides with that increase.

Increasing?

[Present time at left side of graph]

I think not.

Most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when CO2 levels were "safe"

A large portion did take place between 1900 and 1940 (recall its not the absolute CO2 level, it's the change in level - so it wasn't "safe"), and you're cherry-picking to take advantage of the significant cooling period between 1941 and 1979. But even if we look at the absolute numbers we will find more heating between 1980 and 2000 (a 20-year period) than we will between 1900 and 1940 (a 40 year period). So you're both irrelevant and wrong.

Prove that absorption and emission equal warming.

I (and several others) have already explained the basics of radiative heat transfer to you. It's your turn. Explain to us what radiative heat transfers you believe take place when I put that turkey into my oven.

Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

Show that absorption and emission cause warming...quantify the so called greenhouse effect, and provide some actual atmospheric measurements.

Take your mantra and shove it up your ass. As for actual atmospheric measurements, see the first two graphics above. You've seen them before on more than one occasion. Makes me wonder why you're asking for them again. Do you think they cease to exist when you stop looking at them?

ANY of these points would falsify AGW. And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another. So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

They are all false and yet, you believe. Are you stupid?

All false?!?!? You haven't shed the slightest iota of doubt on ANY of them. In your entire post you did not make a SINGLE CORRECT STATEMENT. For christ's sake dude, get back in touch with reality.

If you think so, why don't you and I get into depth on some of the details?

 

[jc456]

Was this:

crick/abe-y displays boundless ignorance.

supposed to have some relevance in response to this?

You don't seem to get how this works. Several of you have repeatedly charged that AGW was so ill-defined that it was unfalsifiable and therefore pseudoscience. I was listing here, as I have done elsewhere, obvious falsifications of AGW. I was not making a case for AGW. I was proving that it is easily falsifiable - were it false. Showing that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases would falsify the theory's contention that human activity is the primary cause of our observed warming. That you cannot show any of these tests to fail is not the fault of the test, it's the fault of your position. AGW is valid.





This mantra of yours: "absorbing and emitting is not warming" is specious and has become tiresome. I asked you some time back to explain how radiative heat transfer works in SSDD-world, but I didn't see a response. Let's make this simple. I've put a turkey in the oven. All three heat transfer functions will take place: conduction, convection and radiation. But we'll just concentrate on radiation for now. The burner at the bottom of the stove is red hot, perhaps 1500F. The turkey is initially at room temperature. Both are radiating but, of course, there's a lot more energy going from the burner to the bird than vice versa. So the bird, not being that perfectly mirrored version they sold down at Sharper Image, absorbs a significant amount of infrared radiation. This radiative transfer takes place solely at the skin of the bird, since neither did I pick up the transparent turkey so fashionable last year. But the increased temperature of the skin is transferred inward via conduction. So that absorbed radiation causes the bird's temperature to rise.
Even when it was room temperature, the bird radiated to its surroundings. Now that its temperature is rising, the amount of IR radiation its emitting is increasing. Fortunately for those of us who don't like our turkey bloody pink, it is not radiating away heat as quickly as it's picking it up. Some of this has to do with the heat its also picking up through conduction from the air in the stove, but mostly it has to do with the continuing delta-T between the skin of the turkey and that 1500F burner element sitting underneath it.

Despite the fact that it is both absorbing and emitting IR (;-)), the bird DOES accumulate thermal energy and its temperature does rise. Your meme is crap. Your batting average at basic and fundamental functions of physical science is still a perfect .000.



Okay.

AND

That only indicates that, Surprise! Surprise!, the Earth is getting warmer. The imbalance between energy in and energy out shows, irrefutably, that the Earth is accumulating solar energy and is warming. See Net radiative imbalance and ocean heat content increase in POGA-H and HIST. : Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling : Nature : Nature Publishing Group



I'd love to hear you try to explain this meme someday, but for now, it's still specious and even more tiresome.



Bullshit.

Increasing?

[Present time at left side of graph]

I think not.



A large portion did take place between 1900 and 1940 (recall its not the absolute CO2 level, it's the change in level - so it wasn't "safe"), and you're cherry-picking to take advantage of the significant cooling period between 1941 and 1979. But even if we look at the absolute numbers we will find more heating between 1980 and 2000 (a 20-year period) than we will between 1900 and 1940 (a 40 year period). So you're both irrelevant and wrong.



I (and several others) have already explained the basics of radiative heat transfer to you. It's your turn. Explain to us what radiative heat transfers you believe take place when I put that turkey into my oven.





Take your mantra and shove it up your ass. As for actual atmospheric measurements, see the first two graphics above. You've seen them before on more than one occasion. Makes me wonder why you're asking for them again. Do you think they cease to exist when you stop looking at them?

They are all false and yet, you believe. Are you stupid?

All false?!?!? You haven't shed the slightest iota of doubt on ANY of them. In your entire post you did not make a SINGLE CORRECT STATEMENT. For christ's sake dude, get back in touch with reality.

If you think so, why don't you and I get into depth on some of the details?

So, yesterday in Chicago land the temperature was 85 degrees the real feel with relative humidity was 95 degrees. hmmmm...why isn't there a reading for CO2 real feel and instead H2O. See, humidity you can measure and guess what humans have nothing to do with it. You all crack me up! None of you alarmist have any idea of what you write.

Oh and one other thought, what is more violent a tornado or a dangerous tornado?

 

[mamooth]

So, yesterday in Chicago land the temperature was 85 degrees the real feel with relative humidity was 95 degrees. hmmmm...why isn't there a reading for CO2 real feel and instead H2O.

Each time I think you can't possibly get dumber, you throw another jaw-dropper our way.

Our mere earth logic can't explain where you come up with this stuff. I don't even try to figure it out. Your thinking is just too alien compared to our ways, and it would risk madness to try to duplicate your thought patterns. I just sit back and enjoy the comedy of it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Prove there's no Bigfoot

 

[jc456]

So, yesterday in Chicago land the temperature was 85 degrees the real feel with relative humidity was 95 degrees. hmmmm...why isn't there a reading for CO2 real feel and instead H2O.

Each time I think you can't possibly get dumber, you throw another jaw-dropper our way.

Our mere earth logic can't explain where you come up with this stuff. I don't even try to figure it out. Your thinking is just too alien compared to our ways, and it would risk madness to try to duplicate your thought patterns. I just sit back and enjoy the comedy of it.

Well while I watch the comedy from my chair you still haven't once provided the proof of your claim, now that is extremely funny. Hilarious, because I know you can't, and that H2o in the atmoshpere has more to do than CO2. It must suck to know you're wrong!

 

[IanC]

There is aguest essay over at WUWT that states my position quite well, if I were more focused and eloquent. AGW is real but a minor factor, and the theory and conclusions of CO2 theory are exaggerated and proven false by examination.

 

[Crick]

There are a lot of guess essays at WUWT. Is this one subtitled "IanC's Position"?

 

[orogenicman]

There is aguest essay over at WUWT that states my position quite well, if I were more focused and eloquent. AGW is real but a minor factor, and the theory and conclusions of CO2 theory are exaggerated and proven false by examination.

That fact that you even bother reading, much less believing anything at WUWT says all I need to know about you. Congratulations, Ian.

 

[jc456]

There is aguest essay over at WUWT that states my position quite well, if I were more focused and eloquent. AGW is real but a minor factor, and the theory and conclusions of CO2 theory are exaggerated and proven false by examination.

That fact that you even bother reading, much less believing anything at WUWT says all I need to know about you. Congratulations, Ian.

The fact you can't prove 120PPM CO2 drives climate is all we need to know about you!

 

[Crick]

The fact you can't prove 120PPM CO2 drives climate is all we need to know about you!

Have you heard the phrase "one-trick pony"? Is there ANYTHING else on the topic of the environment you feel capable of discussing?

 

[SSDD]

The fact you can't prove 120PPM CO2 drives climate is all we need to know about you!

Have you heard the phrase "one-trick pony"? Is there ANYTHING else on the topic of the environment you feel capable of discussing?

Since that is the one thing that the AGW cult revolves around...it is the one thing you need to prove....and yet....you can't.....nor will you ever.

 

[orogenicman]

There is aguest essay over at WUWT that states my position quite well, if I were more focused and eloquent. AGW is real but a minor factor, and the theory and conclusions of CO2 theory are exaggerated and proven false by examination.

That fact that you even bother reading, much less believing anything at WUWT says all I need to know about you. Congratulations, Ian.

The fact you can't prove 120PPM CO2 drives climate is all we need to know about you!

So you agree that the climate is changing. That's a start. So what mechanism do you see as a viable alternative explanation to that which 97% of the world's climate scientists subscribe to?

 

[jc456]

The fact you can't prove 120PPM CO2 drives climate is all we need to know about you!

Have you heard the phrase "one-trick pony"? Is there ANYTHING else on the topic of the environment you feel capable of discussing?

Nope, because dude, without that evidence everything, and I mean everything you post is meaningless to the argument at hand here. It is your claim that 120 PPM taints the temperature of the world. I say prove it. You claim it so prove it. You haven't, debating anything else is immaterial. Your failure is your failure, I will not stop asking as long as you keep posting your lies.

BTW, that means you haven't answered the question.

 

[jc456]

That fact that you even bother reading, much less believing anything at WUWT says all I need to know about you. Congratulations, Ian.

The fact you can't prove 120PPM CO2 drives climate is all we need to know about you!

So you agree that the climate is changing. That's a start. So what mechanism do you see as a viable alternative explanation to that which 97% of the world's climate scientists subscribe to?

prove the 97% claim AGW!

 

[whitehall]

Now they are playing with semantics. Don't you watch the Weather Channel, climate changes every day. The question is whether the poor people in West Virginia who have had the coal mines shut down are responsible for droughts in Africa.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isn’t real.

No one can possibly win that and he knows it. The Earth's climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years. Even before human beings showed up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isn’t real.

No one can possibly win that and he knows it. The Earth's climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years. Even before human beings showed up.

Yeah, but that change was good.
The change now is bad.
Because people are bad.

 

[Crick]

Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isn’t real.

No one can possibly win that and he knows it. The Earth's climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years. Even before human beings showed up.

That should make it easier. If the current change is natural and not the result of human activity, you have tons of historical data with which today's climate behavior should match. That it is being caused by humans - a new driver - should cause the climate to behave in ways it has not done before.

Show us that the changes taking place today are being caused by the same forcing factors that have driven climate change throughout its pre-industrial history. Show that the unique new climate behavior that human forcing must produce has not taken place.

C'mon, that money's just waiting for you...

ps: there's also:

1) Show that humans are not responsible for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere
2) Show there is no additional CO2 in the atmosphere
3) Show that CO2 does not produce a greenhouse effect
4) Alternatively, show that no gas produces a CO2 effect
5) Show that the Earth has not warmed
6) Show that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last century
7) Show that some other forcing mechanism has a superior correlation with temperature and a physical mechanism superior to AGW

Each of these may be accomplished in multiple ways. I don't really understand the hold up. This is easy money folks. Go for IT.

 

[SSDD]

That should make it easier. If the current change is natural and not the result of human activity, you have tons of historical data with which today's climate behavior should match. That it is being caused by humans - a new driver - should cause the climate to behave in ways it has not done before.

So what do you think is happening in the climate today that hasn't happened in the earth climate before?

Show us that the changes taking place today are being caused by the same forcing factors that have driven climate change throughout its pre-industrial history. Show that the unique new climate behavior that human forcing must produce has not taken place.

Can you show any actual evidence that the warm up leading to the holocene maximum, the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, or the Medieval warm period were in any significant way different than the present warm period...other than the fact that they were warmer than the present while CO2 was supposedly at safe levels?

1) Show that humans are not responsible for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere

You must first show proof that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming.

2) Show there is no additional CO2 in the atmosphere

Irrelevant till you prove #1

3) Show that CO2 does not produce a greenhouse effect

The onus is upon you to show that it does. Lets see the proof.

4) Alternatively, show that no gas produces a CO2 effect

What effect are you talking about? Absorption and emission? Show that absorption and emission equal warming.

5) Show that the Earth has not warmed

It has been warming for 14K years with multiple periods warmer than the present...prove that man is in any way responsible for any of it.

6) Show that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last century

Prove that correlation equals causation. Show that there is no correlation between the so called consensus and funding...

7) Show that some other forcing mechanism has a superior correlation with temperature and a physical mechanism superior to AGW

Neither you, nor climate science has yet to prove AGW.. We skeptics keep asking for proof and you can't deliver.