The Climate Challenge

[CrusaderFrank]

...and the winner is

 

[mamooth]

I offer a $10k reward to anyone who can prove the current warming isn't manmade.

Proceed. Remember, I'm the sole judge of how retarded each entry is, and that any retard physics or retard logic will be laughed at.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I offer a $10k reward to anyone who can prove the current warming isn't manmade.

Proceed. Remember, I'm the sole judge of how retarded each entry is, and that any retard physics or retard logic will be laughed at.

That's not science, Dear

 

[Sunsettommy]

I offer a $10k reward to anyone who can prove the current warming isn't manmade.

Proceed. Remember, I'm the sole judge of how retarded each entry is, and that any retard physics or retard logic will be laughed at.

Did you forget to contact Dr. Peter L. Ward about your groundbreaking research that would have you collect the $10,000 award?

Snicker...............

 

[mamooth]

That's not science, Dear

What? You're saying that my meaningless challenge should be laughed at?

I agree. All such meaningless challenges should be laughed at.

And they are.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That's not science, Dear

What? You're saying that my meaningless challenge should be laughed at?

I agree. All such meaningless challenges should be laughed at.

And they are.

Really, have you forgotten post one already?

"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."

bolding mine

That is a specific test he has asked over 2,000 scientists who have been involved with the IPCC.

Surely ONE of them can post the experiment and crush him and many skeptics in one swift stroke.

But then again after nearly 4 years, total silence....., apparently they don't have the evidence to smash him with after all, why are you defending their failure, a wide open opportunity to smash Dr. Ward and skeptics worldwide, it should have been an irresistible opportunity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's not science, Dear

What? You're saying that my meaningless challenge should be laughed at?

I agree. All such meaningless challenges should be laughed at.

And they are.

Post 1 was real science, your post was not even in the same reality

 

[Billy_Bob]

I offer a $10k reward to anyone who can prove the current warming isn't manmade.

Proceed. Remember, I'm the sole judge of how retarded each entry is, and that any retard physics or retard logic will be laughed at.

That is simple...

Its called the Null Hypothesis. We simply look at recent warming and cooling events and compare them to today... Those events in the last 10,000 years clearly show that the earth is capable of these without any help from man.. Now its up to you to prove man is the reason by ruling out all of the earths systems and processes...

Ready, Set, GO.... By the way, send me the ten grand you lost..

 

[mamooth]

Its called the Null Hypothesis. We simply look at recent warming and cooling events and compare them to today...

And as past changes don't the currently observed data, the null hypothesis is disproved. Past changes did not happen when natural factors were all pushing cooling. They did not happen at anywhere near the same rate. And they did not include stratospheric cooling, an increase in backradiation, or a decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands.

Thus, your claim is judged to be retarded.

 

[toobfreak]

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??

Why should any of them take up the challenge? I mean, they've already won the argument, it is accepted widespread opinion that man made CO2 driven climate change is real! Why should they dignify the challenge with an experiment that the only possibility is to either end up with what they already have or lose and be embarrassed? To even DISCUSS the matter is to suggest the possibility that the result is even debatable! I mean, what kind of freaking scientist are you, man?!

 

[toobfreak]

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.

Bob, please be clear. Are you saying that:

1. Water vapor, itself a weak green house agent, interacts with or is a modifier for CO2?
2. That absent water vapor, CO2 rich air alone shows no appreciably greater capacity for the atmosphere to retain more heat than a CO2-staved air?

Because if you are saying #2, the implications are staggering: That the entire move for carbon credits, end of the coal and fossil fuel industry, gas industry, move toward green power sources, electric cars, vegan "meat," et al is one massive, Eco-politically driven lie to fundamentally put a lot of people out of business and fundamentally shift the power base on the planet by instituting magnitudes tighter regulation over energy usage, and by that . . . over PEOPLE.

Put simply, the creation of a massive new hierarchy of useless technologies and industries as a solution in search of a problem.... in this case, an industry foisted upon the people of the world under threat of force by government.

...and that totally changes the picture not only on why Trump is a hero of sorts and must win reelection, but also paints a whole new picture on why the Leftist/Socialist/Globalists of this world absolutely hate/fear him.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Its called the Null Hypothesis. We simply look at recent warming and cooling events and compare them to today...

And as past changes don't the currently observed data, the null hypothesis is disproved. Past changes did not happen when natural factors were all pushing cooling. They did not happen at anywhere near the same rate. And they did not include stratospheric cooling, an increase in backradiation, or a decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands.

Thus, your claim is judged to be retarded.

LOL.. The Null Hypothesis lays waste to your lies in one fail swoop... Keep touting your hyperbole and fabrications.. It's all you have...

 

[Billy_Bob]

That absent water vapor, CO2 rich air alone shows no appreciably greater capacity for the atmosphere to retain more heat than a CO2-staved air?

This is correct;

Our atmosphere will not warm with LWIR. CO2 collides with O2 and transfers the energy kinetically before it can warm. Most of the LWIR band is unaffected by our atmosphere. Convection then removes it to cloud boundary in short order. One need only look at our deserts to understand why. Without water vapor the weight of the atmosphere is lighter, thus the ability to warm and hold energy decreases in both directions. During the day the energy hits the earths surface and at night it is released rapidly to space. In the day temps can reach 120 deg F and at night, in the same location, be below freezing inside four hours. Add water to that atmosphere and the warming slows as does the cooling, in the day just 90 deg F and at night just 50 deg F.

Without the water mass, the atmosphere holds very little heat and LWIR above 6um (longer wave lengths) escapes rapidly.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Water vapor, itself a weak green house agent, interacts with or is a modifier for CO2?

Water vapor is a massive GHG. It is also a modifier of CO2. When cold it absorbs CO2 and traps it, carrying it to the ground and into the oceans. Water Vapor is a dampener of the CO2 effect in our atmosphere.

If you look at Dorian's path this last week, CO2 levels dropped by 55PPM directly behind the hurricane and outward through the cool rain bands. It is effectively removing massive amounts of CO2 from our atmosphere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This weeks winner of the $10,000 is...

 

[SSDD]

Its called the Null Hypothesis. We simply look at recent warming and cooling events and compare them to today...

And as past changes don't the currently observed data, the null hypothesis is disproved. Past changes did not happen when natural factors were all pushing cooling. They did not happen at anywhere near the same rate. And they did not include stratospheric cooling, an increase in backradiation, or a decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands.

Thus, your claim is judged to be retarded.

Step on up to the plate and show us the evidence hairball...the only proxy temperature reconstructions that we have that can even approach the sort of resolution necessary to support such a claim are ice core temperature reconstructions and they show that the bit of warming we have seen has been far smaller than previous temperate changes and has happened much more slowly...so lets see the source of your claims...

 

[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.

Bob, please be clear. Are you saying that:

1. Water vapor, itself a weak green house agent, interacts with or is a modifier for CO2?
2. That absent water vapor, CO2 rich air alone shows no appreciably greater capacity for the atmosphere to retain more heat than a CO2-staved air?

Because if you are saying #2, the implications are staggering: That the entire move for carbon credits, end of the coal and fossil fuel industry, gas industry, move toward green power sources, electric cars, vegan "meat," et al is one massive, Eco-politically driven lie to fundamentally put a lot of people out of business and fundamentally shift the power base on the planet by instituting magnitudes tighter regulation over energy usage, and by that . . . over PEOPLE.

Any engineer who is involved in the design, manufacture, or installation of infrared heating systems can tell you, and provide about a million hours of design, testing, and residential and commercial application that demonstrates quite well that infrared simply does not, and can not warm air.

 

[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.

Bob, please be clear. Are you saying that:

1. Water vapor, itself a weak green house agent, interacts with or is a modifier for CO2?
2. That absent water vapor, CO2 rich air alone shows no appreciably greater capacity for the atmosphere to retain more heat than a CO2-staved air?

Because if you are saying #2, the implications are staggering: That the entire move for carbon credits, end of the coal and fossil fuel industry, gas industry, move toward green power sources, electric cars, vegan "meat," et al is one massive, Eco-politically driven lie to fundamentally put a lot of people out of business and fundamentally shift the power base on the planet by instituting magnitudes tighter regulation over energy usage, and by that . . . over PEOPLE.

Any engineer who is involved in the design, manufacture, or installation of infrared heating systems can tell you, and provide about a million hours of design, testing, and residential and commercial application that demonstrates quite well that infrared simply does not, and can not warm air.

I would add this caveat....

"infrared simply does not, and can not, [directly] warm air." Any warming is done by conduction and convection of earths surface just as IR heaters warm the mass and the mass then warms the air of a room.

 

[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.

Bob, please be clear. Are you saying that:

1. Water vapor, itself a weak green house agent, interacts with or is a modifier for CO2?
2. That absent water vapor, CO2 rich air alone shows no appreciably greater capacity for the atmosphere to retain more heat than a CO2-staved air?

Because if you are saying #2, the implications are staggering: That the entire move for carbon credits, end of the coal and fossil fuel industry, gas industry, move toward green power sources, electric cars, vegan "meat," et al is one massive, Eco-politically driven lie to fundamentally put a lot of people out of business and fundamentally shift the power base on the planet by instituting magnitudes tighter regulation over energy usage, and by that . . . over PEOPLE.

Any engineer who is involved in the design, manufacture, or installation of infrared heating systems can tell you, and provide about a million hours of design, testing, and residential and commercial application that demonstrates quite well that infrared simply does not, and can not warm air.

That is because most of the air in the room doesn't absorb IR at all, and the dribble that does absorb IR (CO2) still doesn't heat the room because it releases the IR virtually instantaneously, no heating at all in the process.

It is the walls, the floors, furniture and people who gets warmed, since their organic/inorganic mass transforms the IR into heat. You can feel this for yourself, simply put your hand close to the face of the heater, then when it gets very warm, move to same distance away above the heater, notice how much cooler it is?

When the hand was in FRONT of the heater, it was getting a lot of IR energy which the hand transformed into heat,

I have experienced this first hand when I used to work in maintaining "comfort" stations in city parks, during the winter there was an undersized heater in the Pipe Chase area, that failed miserably to warm up the air because the water pipes, floor, ceiling and walls were not getting warmed up enough to make the difference. The entire building was so cold that I couldn't do the epoxy painting of the floors during the winter there, my Supervisor who should know better was mad at me, which forced me to show him the Epoxy installation DIRECTIONS covering minimum floor temperature, which was supposed to be at least 50 degrees F, it was obviously less than that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Collecting the $10,000 this week are the following: