Friday, September 19, 2014

List of Challenge Submissions

During the height of the activity with the Global Warming Challenge I made a page that listed all of the submissions and updated it as I received new ones. This allowed people that made submissions to follow my progress. I recently went through all of the submissions - my personal waking version of a recurring nightmare - and added a synopsis to the listing for each submission describing what it was about. This made it a handy reference for anyone doing research on contrarian claims. Some of them were much less than credible, but some of them were typically representative of contrarian claims.

If you are looking for information on these kinds of claims (and the science), then I hope this can serve as a resource. Let me know if I can do anything to make it more useful. Happy hunting.


Arctic Sea Ice Minimum - The State of the Ice Fall 2014


It appears the Arctic sea ice has reached its minimum extant for this year. According to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), as of September 17, the sea ice extent was 5.016 million square kilometers and has begun to increase as autumn sets in. Last year's minimum was 5.101 million square kilometers, so there was a drop of about 85,000 square kilometers (about 33,000 square miles) this year from last year. That puts 2014 as the sixth lowest sea ice extent measured to date. Here is a plot showing the sea ice minimum extent for the last eight years, including 2014 (the incomplete line near the middle). The black line to the top is the long-term average.:

Source: NSIDC

As a function of trends, this year continues the observed 35-year trend of reducing sea ice. Here is the trend line for September through the end of 2013 (the last complete September on record):

Source: NSIDC
Using the 1981-2010 mean listed on the graph, I calculate this year's minimum was 22.8% below the long-term average (6.5 million - 5.016 million/6.5 million x 100%). That puts this year's minimum close to the trend line. So much for claims (and hopes) the ice was recovering.

Unfortunately, there is much more to the story about ice than just the Arctic sea ice extent. Sticking with the north, for now, let's look at a couple of other things.

In addition to the amount of area covered by the Arctic sea ice, we are also concerned with the volume of the ice. As ice gets older, it gets thicker from being jammed up by waves, winds and currents. Older ice is typically thicker ice. This is important because it means it takes more to melt it during the melt season. Young ice is thinner and melts more easily. So, what is the trend for the ice volume?:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
Source: PIOMAS


This shows the ice volume trends for both the end of the melt season (red line on bottom) and the end of the freeze season (blue line on top). Note how both trend lines show a significant decrease in volume. But, also, note there has been a short-term increase in volume since 2012 (the great collapse of Arctic sea ice). This illustrates both why 2012 was such a bad year and why we have seen a rebound since then. But, even with the 2013-14 rebound, the trend is unmistakeable - ice volume is decreasing.

The sea ice is not the only melting ice in the north, the Greenland Ice Sheet is also melting at an alarming rate. Here is a plot showing how much mass the ice sheet is losing due to melting (the vertical dashed-line marks June 2006):

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_curve_La_EN_20140100.png
Source: Polar Portal

The ups and downs in the graph are due to seasonal changes, but the overall trend is unmistakeably down. This shows the ice sheet has lost about 2000 billion tons of ice since 2006, an average of more than 140 billion tons per year. If there is no global warming, where is the heat coming from to melt all of this ice?

But, this is only half of the story and contrarians love to point at the Antarctic sea ice. So, let's leave the north and go south. In this regard, the contrarians are correct, the Antarctic winter sea ice extent has been increasing. But, as is usually the case, they don't want to tell the whole story.

First, the sea ice:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
Source: NSIDC
This plot shows the maximum sea ice extent (the seasons are reversed in the southern hemisphere). Again, there is a clear trend of increasing sea ice. But, there is a huge difference between Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice. The Arctic is an open ocean surrounded by land. The Antarctic is an ocean surrounding a continent of ice. The Antarctic sea ice nearly all melts during the melt season. But, the real question is, what is happening to the Antarctic Ice Sheet? Take a look:

Source: Velicogna Research Group

This graphic, from a research paper on the topic, shows both the mass loss for Greenland (left) and Antarctica (right) as measured using data from the GRACE satellite. This is what the contrarians don't want to discuss. Yes, the sea ice extent is increasing in the south during the winter, but it is melting during the summer and the land ice is melting at a large rate - about 70 billion tons per year.

A recent paper indicates this might be a factor in the increasing amount of sea ice. The melt water is not mixing well due to the circumpolar currents that isolate Antarctica. As a result, the top layer of ocean water is less salty and would freeze more easily.

In any event, we know the amount of ice is decreasing and the situation is not good for us. The changing polar environments are having an effect on the rest of the planet. The California drought has been linked to the loss of sea ice, and there was a forecast about that made ten years in advance. And, sea ice loss may have contributed to the formation and path of Superstorm Sandy. And, of course, all of that melt water running off Greenland and Antarctica is rising the sea level. These are just a couple of examples.

The record shows melting poles are changing things to our detriment.


Thursday, September 18, 2014

August State of the Climate Continues Trend

NOAA released its August 2014 State of the Global Climate report this morning and the bad news continues. Here are some of the highlights:
  • The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.
  • The global land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), the second highest on record for August, behind 1998.
  • For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).
  • The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June–August period was also record high for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), beating the previous record set in 1998.
  • The June–August worldwide land surface temperature was 0.91°C (1.64°F) above the 20th century average, the fifth highest on record for this period. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average, the highest on record for June–August. This beats the previous record set in 2009 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).
  • The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for January–August (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.3°F), the third highest for this eight-month period on record.

This report continues the trend we have been seeing all year. See my previous postings on the state of the climate for June and July.

This is really grim. But, you know what the worst part is? Deniers will point at last weekend's cold snap and say that there is no global warming.

Let's update the tally for the year:

August was the hottest August ever recorded;

July was the fourth hottest July ever recorded;

June 2014 was the hottest June ever recorded;

May was the hottest May ever recorded;

April tied 2010 as the hottest April ever recorded;

March was the fourth hottest March ever recorded;

We got a break in February. It was only the 21st hottest February ever recorded;

But, that break followed the hottest January since 2007 and the fourth hottest January on record.

So, let's see what the score is so far for 2014: one 21st hottest month, three 4th hottest months, and four hottest months ever.

And, overall, 2014 is on track to be the third hottest year ever recorded.

But, the deniers will continue to claim the warming has stopped. That only works to make bad news even worse.







Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Is Fighting Climate Change Bad For the Economy?

One of the many false claims - and there really are a lot of false claims - made by the denier industry is that it would be bad for the economy if we did anything about global warming. Stop and think about that for a moment. That is like saying it is bad for the economy to put out house fires. If the house burns to the ground, the house and all of its contents will have to be replaced, thus creating jobs. If people get killed, so much the better because that will open up some jobs somewhere for someone else. So, every time the fire department puts out a house fire they are putting lots of people out of work.

You might think I'm being over the top in making that comparison to the denier industry and you would be right. The denier industry is much worse than what I just alluded to. The fact is, the world economy is suffering hundreds of billions of dollars, even trillions of dollars, in damages worldwide and it is estimated that as many as 400,000 people are dieing each year due to climate change. This is not some figure that is estimated for 100 years from now. This is what is going on right now, every year. And, that casualty figure does not include the number of people that become ill or injured, just the ones that die.

If you find that line of reasoning offensive, all I can say is that you should. And, you should find it offensive that the denier industry is saying global warming is good for us and everyone that listens to them is buying into it and repeating it. But, that's the point here. They are saying it and people (contrarians) are believing it. It makes me wonder what kind of horrible sickness do they have? Some kind of Ebola virus of the logical thought process, but it doesn't kill your body, just your ability to think logically - Ebola Denier.

All you have to do to see just how ridiculous the denier industry is on this issue is to look at who profits and who loses with global warming:

Winners: The Koch Brothers, Saudi Arabia, the coal industry, ExxonMobil, Venezuela, Iran, Islamic terrorists

Losers: Anyone having to pay for groceries, anyone having to pay for insurance, anyone having utilities they have to pay for, anyone that is concerned about getting a job, anyone living in a low-elevation area, farmers, ranchers, anyone that can get sick from diseases, anyone vulnerable to wildfires, anyone that is subject to the weather

Which one of those groups do you fall in? Then, if you are a contrarian, ask yourself - Why do you cling to your disproved beliefs? You are one of the losers, and you still want to believe what the billionaires are telling you? Apparently, they don't have enough money and you have too much. Take out your checkbook and write them a check.

The fact is, we can fight climate change and grow the economy at the same time. Again, stop and think about it. If we are spending money and doing work to fight global warming, where is that money going and who is doing the work? Is it really that hard? If we are spending a lot of money to fight global warming, the money has to go somewhere, it has to be spent on something. The purchase of products and services to fight global warming means someone has to make those products or provide those services. And, every time we talk about hard work to fight this problem, someone has to be doing the hard work. In both cases, we are creating jobs.

But, the denier industry will tell you that people will lose their jobs. And, this time they aren't lying to you. There are people that will lose their jobs if we fight global warming: The Koch Brothers, coal industry executives, oil industry executives, Islamic terrorists, government officials in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iran. 

Now, I think, we can all see why so much money and effort is being put into preventing anyone from doing anything about global warming.

Here is an interesting report on the effects on the economy from fighting global warming.

Monday, September 15, 2014

2014 Arctic Sea Ice Extant Now Sixth Lowest Ever

According to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Arctic sea ice extent has now reached a low of 5.082 million square kilometers and is still declining. That is now less than the minimum extent of 5.101 million square kilometers recorded in 2013. In addition to 2013, the 2014 level is also lower than than the 2009 level. The only years with less ice than what we are seeing right now are 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and the disastrous year of 2012. It would take a major event for the 2014 level to fall to the level of any of those years, so it looks like 2014 will go down as having the sixth lowest Arctic sea ice level ever recorded. The minimum should be reached within the week (last year's minimum occurred on September 14th) and we will know for sure.

This is bad news all around. It was certainly hoped that the big rebound that occurred last year might be the start of a trend, but the data doesn't support that. While the hope might have been there, no one studying the Arctic sea ice thought a new trend would occur. The science and the history both indicated last year's extent was nothing more than a fluctuation in the weather and not a recovery.

This, of course, is also bad news for all of the deniers and contrarians out there that have been making claims that global warming isn't real because the sea ice has recovered to the highest level in 35 years/1980 levels/full level/record level, take your pick of the false claim (I have heard all of these and even more).

No, the sea ice extent is not recovering and claims to the contrary are not supported by science. But, isn't that typical for the contrarians? Never let good science get in the way of your claims.

I will be making a more detailed posting on this year's ice (including Antarctica and Greenland) after we hit the minimum extent in the Arctic.


Thursday, September 11, 2014

Dispelling The "No Consensus" Myth

Skeptical Science invited 97 climate scientists to comment on the contrarian myth that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. One comment will be published every hour for 97 hours. You can read about the effort on the AGU Blogosphere, or you can read the comments here.

This is a noteworthy effort and I hope it will convince some of the people that are on the fence about what they believe. As for the contrarians, as I keep saying, there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever get them to change their minds. They are, quite literally, out of touch with reality. Too bad.

Tropical Storms in the Southwest

The remnants of Hurricane Norbert hit the Southwestern U.S. this week and caused havoc. Record rainfall in the region caused flooding, closed roads and led to at least two deaths. To really add injury to injury, the flooding is not likely to help with the drought. The system missed the areas hardest hit by the drought and didn't help at all. Even in areas that got rain, the rain came so hard and fast that it ran off rather than soak in. Some, of course, will be caught in the reservoirs and will provide some help, but most will lost.

A tropical storm system hitting this region is very unusual. Just look at the fact that it was not only the single day record rain, but it really shattered the old record. Norbert dumped 3.29 inches on Phoenix on Monday. The old single day record was 2.91 inches and was 81-years old. The new record is more than 13% higher than the old one. (There was also a 4.98 inch rainfall in 1911 that occurred over two days, but within a 24-hour period, making it the 24-hour record holder.) What isn't revealed in that statistic is that the 3.29 inches fell in just seven hours. You don't see this kind of record history very often in places that get tropical storms on a regular basis.

According to Wikipedia, there have been four tropical storms that have hit the Southwester U.S. with gale force winds since 1900. Norbert was not the fifth. Storm organization had degraded quickly when the storm hit Mexico and wind speeds dropped precipitously.

So, why do so few storms hit this region? After all, there are lots of Pacific storms that form in this region and tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere tend to hook towards the Northeast. You would think this would create a situation conducive for West Coast storm strikes.

The answer lies in the ocean temperature. The California Current along the West Coast originates in the north and moves southwards along the continental margin.  Take a look at this plot from Climate Reanalyzer showing the ocean temperature for September 11, 2014:


Source: Climate Reanalyzer
The light blue band along the coast line clearly shows how the waters in this region are cooler than ocean waters farther out to sea (to the left, or west). There are two things that are needed for tropical cyclone development: warm ocean water and a lack of high-altitude wind shear. As it turns out, the California Current not only cools the water, it also leads to high-altitude wind shear. Storms that form and move into this region run right into a hurricane killer. The U.S. West Coast has it very own hurricane-barrier.

But, what is going to happen as the ocean gets warmer as a result of climate change? We don't need to speculate, we can look at the record and we can see what is already happening.


While Norbert didn't bring gale force winds, it did fall in the category of tropical storm remnant affecting the Southwest. Again, according to Wikipedia (not a research quality source, but adequate for our purpose here), there have been 67 storms (not including Norbert) that are recorded to have had an impact on California.
Number of recorded storms impacting California
Period Number of storms
Pre-1930
11
1930s
7
1940s
3
1950s
5
1960s
3
1970s
7
1980s
9
1990s
7
2000s
10
2010s
5
Adding Norbert, this list indicates that there have been 39 of the 68 storms since the beginning of the 1970s, over 57% of all of the storms on this list. Why did I use that time span? Take a look at this graph for the answer:


Global Ocean Heat Content 1955-present 0-700 m
Source: NOAA

This graph shows the ocean temperature started a significant increase in the late-1960s. Remember, tropical storms need warm water. We would expect, if all things remain equal (a bad assumption, but a good starting point) that the California hurricane barrier would start to break down and that is what the data seems to be indicating.

Take a look at this plot, also from Climate Reanalyzer:

Source: Climate Reanalyzer

This plot shows the temperature anomaly for September 11, 2014, the same day as the other ocean temperature plot. The difference between the two is the first plot showed the actual water temperature and this one shows the difference between the actual temperature and the average temperature. Just as the above plot clearly showed the California Current to provide cooler waters along the West Coast, this one shows, equally clearly, that the waters along the West Coast are getting warmer. Quite a bit so, in fact.

Does this mean California and the Southwest can expect more tropical storm remnants? I believe the data shows that is already happening. Does this mean there is a possible relief for the long-term drought? Again, I believe the data already shows this is not the case. Droughts are relieved, and caused, by long-term changes in the precipitation pattern. Flash floods with large amounts of runoff are not going to provide the relief needed. That will take long, soaking rains and heavy snowfall in the mountains. In fact, there is evidence the warming oceans is what is actually causing the drought.

The conclusion I reach from this is that this region is already experiencing severe effects from global warming and will continue to see them into the future.



Thursday, September 4, 2014

Precipitation Data Available Online

One of the common false arguments contrarians make is that climate change data is not available to anyone but climate scientists and they could prove the scientists wrong if they just had access to the data. This, of course, is false in multiple ways. The first being they are not going to prove climate scientists wrong, no matter how much data they have. The second being, the data is freely available to anyone with a Internet connection.

The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has all available climate data online for anyone to access. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has ice and snow data. And, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) has satellite data. These are just a sample of the data available. So, anyone that claims they are denied the data clearly has not done their homework.

Now, this amount of data has just been increased. NASA and JAXA have made the data from the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite available to the public. This mission is a joint mission between NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), with contributions from other countries, was launched this past February 27 and measures worldwide precipitation.

If you would like to access the data you can find it here.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Inviting Guest Submissions

I am opening up the discussion to guest submissions. There are, of course, a few rules:

1. This is a blog about global warming and climate change. If you want to discuss something else, there are plenty of venues for that. Please, stay on topic;

2. Keep the language family-friendly;

3. Please avoid personal attacks;

4. You own the copyright to any submissions, but I have the right to reproduce it, in whole or part, as I wish;

5. You may post anonymously, if you wish. Just ask;

6. All postings are open for comments and rebuttals;

7. I have the right to refuse to publish any submission and, once published, I have the right to remove any and all submissions;

Pretty simple.

I feel the topic is broad enough that I don't need to expand it. Anything relating to climate change and global warming will qualify. Obviously, I follow the science and am a supporter of anthropogenic climate change. That is not a requirement for a submission. You may make a submission that is contrarian, if that is what you wish (see rule number 6 above). I would appreciate it if you included a title for your submission. Otherwise, I will give it a title I feel is most representative of the posting. All guest submissions will be annotated as such.

If you wish to submit a guest posting, simply write it up and send it to the email at the top of my blog:

DOGW.email@gmail.com


Monday, September 1, 2014

Climate Articles From Over the Summer

You may have already seen these, but I was so wrapped up with the challenge that I missed a lot of things over the summer. Recently, I've been working on doing all of those things I didn't do - like mowing the lawn - that I am just now catching up. Here are a couple of articles I found interesting and didn't have a chance to comment on previously.

The GlobalChange.gov, using data from the National Climatic Assessment report released in May, showed changing weather patterns across the U.S. and discussed changes that have occurred and projected changes that will occur for temperature, frost and precipitation. One of the changes noted was the way precipitation patterns are changing and highlights one of the issues of climate change - not all regions will see the same thing. The observed changes in U.S. precipitation is, basically, the haves will have more and the have nots will have even less. If you get lots of rain you will be getting even more, and if you get only a little rain you will be getting even less. You could probably take the total amount of rainfall for the entire U.S. and say the average is about the same, but that would be misleading. If you are experiencing more frequent and more severe flooding, do you really care what the national average is? If you are experiencing more frequent and more severe droughts, do you really care that some other region is getting lots of rain? Climate change is highlighted by regional changes. Here is a map showing the changes in very heavy precipitation for the country. Bad news for most of us. Really bad news for the Northeast and the West Coast.:

PHOTO: A map of rain from the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment (2014)
Source: ABC News



Then there is the issue of temperature. I have had many people say to me that global warming is false because we are having the coolest year on record. This statement is full of all sorts of errors and false arguments, but people believe it any way.So, let's take a look at this statement.

The first problem is that this has not been the coolest year on record (or, ever recorded, or in the last 50 years - depending on who you are talking to). According to the National Climatic Data Center, July 2014 State of the Climate Report,
The contiguous U.S. average temperature for the first seven months of 2014 was 51.3°F, near the 20th century average but also the coldest first seven months of any year since 1993.
It always important to make sure you keep your facts straight and not let what you want govern what is real. The contiguous U.S. is having the coldest year since 1993, that is 21 years. But, there is more to the story than that. The U.S. makes up less than 2% of the planet surface, so what goes on here is only a sample. When we talk about 'global warming' we mean the globe, not the U.S. The global temperature average continues to rise.

But, there is even the issue of talking about the contiguous U.S. this way, because this cool weather has been limited to the eastern half of the country. The western part is experiencing record heat. California has been experiencing a long-term trend of increasing temperature, but this year has been incredible. The temperature didn't just set a record, it smashed the old one.

Source: National Climatic Data Center
Source: Bloomberg.com


This illustrates the point that you cannot take a single datum point, or even a small data set, and expect to make a valid point and this is true for both sides of the aisle. We need to examine the larger picture in order to figure out what is going on. And, keep in mind, our stated goal should always be to figure out what is truly going on. It shouldn't be about which political party, or which celebrity, is right or wrong. It seems too many times people are trying to turn this into a sporting event and are rooting for their 'side', no matter the issue.

So, let's all try to focus on the issue and stick to the science, not the politics.







Wednesday, August 27, 2014

The Challenge Is All Done!

I have been scrubbing through the comments sections and I believe I have addressed all of the submissions. If you feel I missed your submission, you are welcome to bring it to my attention and I will fix the problem.

All total, I think there were 85 submissions that I addressed. I will make it official and say that none came even close to proving man made global warming (AGW) is not real. Some were quite interesting, but that didn't make them valid. Some were bad, some were very bad and then there were those that were just plain awful.

There were many things that became apparent during the challenge that I would like to mention:

- It is surprising how many people think that being rude and offensive towards me somehow made their submissions valid. I don't care for bullies and they quickly learned they picked a fight with the wrong person.

- It is also surprising how many people jumped to the conclusions about me and the challenge they wanted to. I found this to be a pretty common trait - these people would patiently wait until they had 10% of the information before jumping to the wrong conclusion, and that conclusion never gave me the benefit of the doubt.

- It is surprising how badly people act when they can hide behind a computer. I wonder if they would want their children/spouse/mother/father/brother/sister/boss to know how they acted on this blog. I am willing to bet right here and now that not a single one of them will come back and apologize for their behavior.

- I have said that the only way to reject AGW is to reject science. I am truly disappointed in how many people proved me right. I even had several people say that if science disagreed with them then the science had to be thrown out. Amazing!

- It was no surprise at all to see how many people rejected my response, no matter how much evidence I provided to support it. I have always said that it is not possible to change someone's mind once they reject global warming. No amount of scientific evidence or logic will change their minds. Now, they have proved it.

- It was also no surprise to see how many people that reject global warming wanted to change the terms of my challenge or to weasel out of the challenge by making ridiculous claims, such as "You can't prove a negative," or, "You didn't define what global warming is." These, and others like them, are completely false statements. If they go around saying they can prove AGW isn't real, then they should have been able to do so here. If they aren't making that statement then this challenge wasn't directed at them. Either way, trying to redefine the challenge or by making silly statements like that is nothing more than an admission that they cannot produce any science to support their claims.

- In summary, this was an honest challenge and I would have paid if anyone could have produced an scientifically sound proof. It wasn't that no one was in the ball park, it was the fact that no one could even see the ball park from where they were standing.


Now, the claim that is being made is that I reneged on the challenge because there were some that should have won. OK, once again, there are people making a statement without any evidence and I am going to put the burden on them to prove it. I am challenging these people to point out which submission should have won and why. They are making the claim, now put up or shut up. And, please don't come back with something along the lines of, "You have to throw out any science that disagrees with me."

I'll wait, but I know it will be a long one. 


The Electric Field


The main problem is your assumption that we are dealing with large amounts of typical matter, but we are dealing with large amounts of plasma that has a unique nature and behavior. Plasma does not behave like any of the other three states of matter. It is highly energetic and dynamic, constantly changing and redistributing charge based on variations in its energy input. In more energetic states it self-organizes creating glows, toruses, filaments and complex discharge patterns with electromagnetism as the acting primal force. I know that plasma physics is a scientific discipline. I just believe that the role of plasma is not well understood and its significance highly underestimated at the least.

The electrical nature of plasma cannot be ignored. Plasma is a collection of charged particles that responds collectively to an electromagnetic force. It is conductive and if you apply a voltage, an electric current will be induced in it causing charge separation into anode and cathode field-aligned current sheaths or double layers. Given increased energy these layers can transform into spiral tubes or vortexes of conducting charged particles (Birkeland currents), creating magnetic fields around the current paths.

The electric current excites the ions and electrons in the plasma making them move rapidly toward the opposite charged sheath. The frenzied particle movement produces collisional energy photons that cause the plasma to glow in the visible range. As the input electric energy increases, the plasma goes from dark glow mode to glow mode to arc or spark discharge mode, as in the cases of the solar wind, the polar auroras and lightning, respectively. Input energy variability can effect an instability in the sheaths causing their magnetic fields to pinch down toward each other and discharge energy at the “Z-pinch”. This is what is defined as a star in the electric universe theory.

In this theory our star, the sun, is a plasma discharge phenomenon that is connected electrically to all the planets and other stars in our galaxy. Given we can now detect and observe electrical tornadoes impinging at earth’s poles originating from the sun, then electric currents and accompanying magnetic fields flow between the earth and the sun. Larger currents flow between the sun and the galaxy.

Why this matters is because this electromagnetic link between the sun and the earth is highly energetic and variable. The earth reacts to the sun’s electromagnetic variations with changes in its electromagnetic environment that influence temperature, weather, lightning and climate. Sure, certain gases like carbon dioxide and methane have heating effects on earth’s atmosphere and surface, but one significant solar event can accelerate or reverse these effects.

This is not about those that believe in anthropogenic climate change versus the deniers. This is about seeking and knowing the truth, the primary function and goal of science. Let the evidence lead you to the truth wherever it may take you, not based on consensus, but on observational facts.

And I believe I can prove that your stated position is wrong, because it is based on incorrect assumptions about the nature of the earth’s atmosphere, temperature, weather and climate, and what drives and influences them: the sun.

Some recent evidence (about an hour total):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...





Response:

I will start out by confessing I lost this submission and it took me awhile to refind it. My apologies to the submitter. It was not done on purpose or with any kind of malice.

Plasma is the most common form of (normal) matter in the universe. All stars are made of plasma, as is the majority of matter between stars and galaxies. Plasma is normal matter that consists of electrically charged atoms, molecules and electrons, but the net charge is neutral, meaning there are equal parts positively and negatively charged particles. As a result, plasma reacts to electric and magnetic fields. However, plasma is very rarefied (opposite of dense). We do not find plasma in our atmosphere, except with rare and specific exceptions such as lightning and certain kinds of flames. The reason is because plasma is dependent on the charged particles not running into each other and connecting to form a neutral particle (plasma can exist in very dense stars due to the extreme temperatures that keep ripping the neutral particles apart again). For that reason, even though plasma dominates space, it is insignificant within the dense atmosphere where we live. You need to go about 100 miles up before the space between particles gets large enough for plasma to exist for any length of time. Even there, plasma is only a small percentage of the atmosphere and it is still mostly neutral.

You are correct, in a very simplified version, about how currents form in the plasma and create, among other things, the Birkeland currents. These occur very high in the atmosphere. And, yes, this is also the cause of the aurorae and other currents within the upper-atmosphere.

You are also correct when you say the Sun (and any other star) is emitting plasma. This emitted plasma is called the solar wind and consists mainly of protons (hydrogen nuclei) and electrons. Yes, we are connected to the Sun via magnetic field lines which channel plasma into our atmosphere (which is what causes the aurorae). Are the magnetic field lines coming from the Sun connected to field lines of the galaxy? We don't know, but we believe it is possible.

But, the amount of energy contained in the solar wind is very, very tiny compared to the amount of energy contained in sunlight. Solar wind can have a very dramatic effect on the power grid, satellites and electronic components by essentially slamming them with a sudden burst of electricity (moving charged particles), which can lead to damage and even power outages in the grid and catastrophic failure in the satellites. The largest known such event occurred in 1859 and is known as the Carrington Event, named for the scientist that was making observations of the Sun when the eruption on the Sun's surface responsible for the event occurred. Aurorae were observed almost all the way to the equator. Electrical sparks would fly from telegraph equipment and set buildings on fire. If such an event were to happen today it could very possibly lead to an enormous power failure among nations in the high latitudes (the southern and norther aurorae - aurora borealis and aurora australias - mirror each other).

So, you have the basic facts correct, but there are two major problems. The issue is intensity. As I said above, the amount of energy contained in the solar wind is very miniscule compared to other sources of energy reaching Earth from the Sun. Even great storms like the Carrington Event don't put as much energy into the atmosphere as sunlight does. But, this energy is still included in our calculations and incorporated into climate models. I did my graduate research in this area and have continued to do some research. It is a very important, and complicated, subject and is studied in great detail.

But, another problem is the fact the solar activity is actually decreasing slightly over recent decades (and continuing to do so). The decrease isn't anything to worry about, but it would cause a slight drop in temperature if that is all there was. So, if your hypothesis was correct, we would be experiencing global cooling, not warming. So, we can safely conclude that warming is not due to plasma reaching Earth from the Sun.

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


Monday, August 25, 2014

Thought Experiment

  1. Alright bro, you want me to prove via the scientific method that man-made global climate change is not occurring? As you wish.

    First, the scientific method. Not everyone agrees exactly on the steps, but I will go with the commonly agreed upon steps in the hopes that this is sufficient.
    1) Observe a situation.
    2) Form a hypothesis regarding a question related to what has been observed.
    3) Test the hypothesis via experiment.
    4) Analyze the results of the experiment to determine whether or not it can be determined whether or not the hypothesis is correct, and if it can, then also whether or not the hypothesis is correct.

    The first step, of course, is something we have all been doing our entire lives. We experience climate change. We experience human activity.

    The second step is to form a hypothesis. In this case, that hypothesis is that man-made global climate change is not occuring.

    The third step is to test the hypothesis via experiment. In this case, I am going to test my hypothesis via thought experiment.

    First, consider what it means for a process (such as global climate change) to be 'man-made'. Everything in this Universe is connected to everything else in this Universe, be it directly or indirectly. For something to be 'made' or caused by something else, that cause has to be the direct cause or the root cause. The reason I specify both 'direct cause' and 'root cause' is because they are not always the same, while there are other in-between factors that are not themselves the cause but rather something related to the other factors. Consider, for example, a line of one hundred dominoes. The first one falling ultimately leads to the last one falling. The first domino falling is the root cause of the last domino falling. The ninety-ninth domino falling is the direct cause of the last domino falling. Of course dominos two through ninety-eight are all part of the process as well, but to say that any one of those is not simply a part of the process, but rather the cause itself, for the final domino falling, is absurd. We are talking about a single cause, not every step.

    Now, the question here is whether or not man-made global climate change is occuring. If man's effect on global climate change is neither the root cause (domino one) or the direct cause (domino ninety-nine), but rather a piece along the way (say, domino sixty-six), man is not the cause of global climate change, rather, global climate change is 'made' by either the root cause or the direct cause, depending on your interpretation.

    Now then, what is the root cause and what is the direct cause? Is man one of those, or is man, in fact, not the true culprit?

    First let's consider the direct cause. Climate is directly caused by factors such as heat (the amount of kinetic energy in the atmosphere), humidity (the amount of dihydrogen monoxide in the atmosphere), and other such factors. This is on a molecular, atomic, and subatomic levels. A change in climate is caused by a change in the factors that cause climate. For example, a change in the amount of kinetic energy in the air, or a change in the amount of dihydrogen monoxide in the air, will result in climate change. This is the direct cause; even if man is responsible for this, man is not the direct cause.

    It is clear, then, that man is not directly responsible for global climate change, but it was already determined that, depending on your interpretation, something could be considered 'man-made' if man is the root cause as opposed to the direct cause. What, then, is the direct cause for global climate change? Is it man? In this case, of course, the word 'man' means 'mankind', or the human species, as opposed to 'adult male'. Our question, then, is whether or not the human species is the root cause of climate change.

    4096-character limit for post, so this will be continued in a second and a third post.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Part 2/3

    For the human species to be the root cause of something, there must not be something else that cause the human species to be responsible, in the same way that domino two is not the root cause because domino one made domino two do its part. That leads us to question whether or not there is something that causes the human species to act in ways that lead to global climate change (given that the human species does act in ways that lead to global climate change, which I believe we can agree on). Many human activities are a piece of the domino chain leading to global climate change. For example, the production of oil, and the use of gasoline. But is there something else that causes us to produce oil and to use gasoline? What about to create factory farms, one of the biggest contributers to global climate change? Or to build and fly airplanes? Did we, humans, simply decide one day 'Hey, let's make gasoline and farms and cars and airplanes!'? If you put a baby in a confined environment, giving it only what it needs to live, would it make these things? Would it even contemplate making this things, desire to make these things, or even fathom the possibility that these things could exist? No. Rather, we, humans, made these things because of a cause. Multiple causes, actually. We created gasoline to power vehicles, we created vehicles for transportation. This is a result of our desire for transportation. Of course, our desires could be considered a part of us, but there is a root cause beyond our desire: The magnitude of the planet we live on. We develop vehicles for transportation because of our desire to travel, and we desire to travel because of the vast size of this planet, being too big to walk on foot to our destinations. Of course there are factors other than vehicles, but what about power plants? Humans build power plants so we can have electricity. Why do we want electricity? For heat, light, communication, among other things. Why do we want heat? Because of the climate where many of us live. It is and always has been too cold for humans to live comfortably without artifical heating in many areas of Earth. Why light? Because nowhere on Earth is always naturally lit by a star or any other source. Why communication? The same reason as travel, Earth is too vast for us to simply walk over to whoever we want to talk to. Simply put, every single thing that humans do that contributes to global climate change is caused by another factor, that factor being something about the nature of Earth. It might be Earth's size or Earth's climate or something else. Regardless, it is not humankind itself.

    The final step of the scientific method is to analyze the results of the experiment. Analysis: The root cause is the nature of this planet, and potentially other factors that influence us, our lives, and our decisions. The direct cause is molecular, atomic, and subatomic factors like kinetic energy and humidity. Does that analysis answer whether or not global climate change is man-made? Yes, it identified what global climate change is actually made by, that not being man, and therefore that global climate change is not man-made.


    4096-character limit for post, so this will be continued in a third and final post
    ReplyDelete
  3. Final post, pastebin of whole thing as one part rather than split into three posts is here: http://pastebin.com/6FZXHNZ9


    Of course some might find this insufficient so let me provide a second experiment. Back to step three. Another thought experiment of sorts.

    The question is whether or not man-made global climate change is occuring. The article 'is' refers to now. It is not future like 'will' or past like 'has'. Time is quantized. Therefore, 'is' refers to this exact Planck time. The question, then is whether or not man-made global climate change is occuring at a given Planck time when the question is to be answered. Of course it takes far more than a single Planck time to analyze and answer the question, but that is due to the limits of information processing; 'is' still refers to the present which is always, at any instant, that exact instant, that exact Planck time. Then is man-made global climate change occuring at the current instant, at a single Planck time? Global climate change is a process. A process is a change, an event. An event is subjective to time. It occurs over time. The quickest of events happen over the change from one Planck time to the next. Therefore, they are subjective to at least two Planck times, not a single Planck time. Therefore, at any given one Planck time, not a series of Planck times but at a single Planck time, no process is occuring or can be occuring. Because our question is whether or not man-made global climate change IS occuring, not will occur or has occured, it clearly cannot be because no event IS occuring at this present Planck time.

    Analysis: Global climate change, man-made or not, IS NOT occuring. Global climate change will occur, and has occured. But at a single Planck time it IS NOT occuring, and therefore man-made global climate change is not occuring.



    There, two proofs that man-made global climate change is not occuring. You might reject one but you can't reject both!

    Pls send over $9,000 to anon3140@hushmail.com, thank you very much and I will live you forever <3

    pls respond


    Response:

    This is a rather interesting thought experiment. But, there is a flaw in the logic. You state the first domino is the root cause, but you neglect to include whatever it was that caused the first domino to fall in the first place. The domino doesn't just spontaneously fall, something has to make it fall. So, by your line of logic, domino one cannot be the root cause.

    But, of course, something else made whatever it was that caused the first domino to fall, so that must be the root cause. And, then something else made that second whatever, and so on. By your line of logic, there is only one root cause for anything - the Big Bang. Nothing else can be a cause because it is in between the root cause and the direct cause.

    So, let's look at it again.

    Everything is a root cause and also a direct cause for something, somewhere. Simple cause and effect. We cannot state we are not responsible for out actions merely based on an argument that we are not the root cause. If someone steals a car, the law doesn't allow a defense where the thief claims it isn't their fault because someone in the past wanted to make transportation faster and invented cars. If cars had never been invented, then they could not have stolen one, so it is the inventor's fault. Even if someone else made the decision to put the car in the field of view of the thief, the thief still is responsible for the decision to steal it.

    In the same way, we cannot say we are not responsible for causing climate change because the world is big and necessitated we invent cars and power plants. We made the decision to do things to the environment we knew would change it and lead to global warming.

    Ultimately, the challenge is not to prove why we are causing global climate change, the challenge is to prove it isn't happening. Which you tried to address in your second thought experiment.

    You used the idea that 'is' means 'this particular Planck time,' which is about 10^-43 seconds in length. In fact, the global climate will be slightly different at the end of a Planck time than it will at the beginning. If there is any change at all (Hopefully, no one is thinking there is absolutely no change at all), then there has to be change in the period of a Planck period of time, even if it is a very small amount. If there was no change, then stacking countless Planck periods end-to-end would result in no change, no matter how many Planck periods we used. The fact that there is change over many Planck times means there is change over a single Planck time.

    Add to that the fact that you said yourself that we are causing man made global warming and I can say with confidence that you did not prove man made global warming is not real.

    It was an interesting attempt, though. 

Lack of Evidence

Here is my formal submission, via the scientific process.

1. Have humans not caused climate change on planet earth?

2. Indisputable research is not available that shows that humans have caused climate change.

3. Hypothesis – humans have not caused climate change due to the lack of evidence that all scientist agree on.

4. Test – able to verify that not all scientists agree that humans have caused climate change. See Wiki list of “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming”.

5. Data shows that climate change via human activity is a hypothesis and therefore is not regarded as scientific fact. Therefore, climate change cannot be proven to be caused by humans - the resulting conclusion has to be that humans have not caused climate change.

6. Process of elimination shows that humans have not caused climate change due to the lack of indisputable evidence that humans have caused climate change.


Response

#1. That is a question, but I don't see the point, or the answer.

#2. Indisputable research is most certainly available. The reason I made the challenge is because the science is indisputable. I provided a venue for people who claim they can prove man made global warming is not real to do so. So far, no one has come close.

#3. This is a very strange comment. Many of the submitters here have made the claim they have found the flaw and the scientists were all wrong. That is exactly opposite of what you just stated. But, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (97%, in fact) are convinced by the science that AGW is real. However, either case is irrelevant. Science is not a popularity contest and AGW is real, or not, independent of the opinions and conclusions of people.

#4. Again, irrelevant. Plus, I have seen that list and it is most highly suspect.

#5. Logical fallacy as well as a factual fallacy.

#6. No go. You would not even win brownie points in a logic class for that argument.

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


Challenge Is A Scam

Part 1/2
“I have heard global warming promoters make all sorts of statements about how the science (doesn't) supports claims of man-made climate change. I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the promoters to prove their claims, because they have been falsified in many ways by many skeptics.” -- Skeptic, anonymous for obvious reasons

1. Before playing a game it is good policy to understand the rules and how to keep score.
2. The Proposer of a game has the duty to explain the rules and how to keep score and the Denier may refuse to play for any reason.
3. The Proposer of a theory has the duty to explain and prove it is true, the Denier only has a duty to explain why it is not.
4. Any theory, postulate, hypothesis, surmise or hunch may be either true, false or unproven. If true it is promoted from a Theory to a Law of science.
5. While Denier may prove a different theory is true so that proposed GHGT must not be, he does not have to meet that standard to claim GHGT is not proven.
6. If Denier merely proves the theory is unproven and not of sufficient quality to be promoted to a Law, that would satisfy the claim the theory is not true.
7. If Denier finds one flaw in theory, that is sufficient to deny it status as a Law.
8. A theory of science or mathematics may be considered true if it meets some well-established criteria, until then it is not yet proven.
9. Consensus about the validity of a claim not supported by science or evidence is irrelevant to decision to elevate theory to Law.
10. Since GHGT promoters still call it a theory, they acknowledge it is not a Law.
11. Since some GHGT promoters claim it is not falsifiable, they place it in the realm of religion, superstition or politics. This is evidence they accept it is not a Law.
12. Science has clear criteria standards to be met before a theory is considered true. Engineering profession has additional standards.
13. Both sets of standards must be satisfied before GHGT is deemed proven; if any one criterion is not satisfied, it is not proven.
14. Since there are a number of evolving attempts to define the GHGT, there is no accepted standard version.
15. Therefore a correct one is not finally offered for rebuttal. No proposed unique GHGT exists. Without a uniqueness proof, it must be held false.
16. Therefore it is important to clearly state what the theory is in English and mathematics, the language of nature.
17. Since Earth’s atmosphere is a chemical process system, chemical engineers holding degrees from accredited universities and professional licenses from State governments are qualified to be Deniers.
18. Since application of GHGT to control Earth’s temperature and climate is a control system, like a thermostat, control systems engineers holding degrees from accredited universities and professional licenses from State governments are qualified to be Deniers.
19. The GHGT must explain why CO2 is a pollutant, and what the consequences are if it is.
20. Since GHGT claims anthropogenic CO2 causes catastrophic global warming and climate change, the terms catastrophic, climate and change must be quantified scientifically, mathematically, before they can reasonably be denied.
21. Correlation does not prove causation. That breaks the foundation of GHGT.
22. The physical link between CO2 as prime cause and each claimed global consequence like temperature, sea level, drought, habitat destruction, hurricanes, tornadoes must be expressed in laws of physics.
23. Theory must provide the laws of nature, like mass, energy and momentum conservation and transfer rate laws of physics, chemistry, biology and chemical engineering that quantitatively describe the effect of greenhouse gases on Earth’s temperature and climate.
24. Unintended consequences must be identified, according to the Precautionary Principle.
25. Actual financial damages from anthropogenic CO2 must be quantified. Otherwise the catastrophe denial exercise is futile punching as a ghost.

Part 2/2
26. If the Denier can identify one mechanism that provides a counter effect excluded from the proposed GHGT, that would suffice to deny GHGT status as Law.
27. Photosynthesis is cooling and CO2 consuming chemical reaction neglected by GHGT. CO2 is green plant food, an important Law of science neglected by GHGT
28. The proposed theory must not violate any existing laws of nature deemed to be true without first proving they are not true.
29. The proposed theory must predict behavior in nature which is verified by observation measurement. This has not been done, so GHGT must be deemed false.
30. In summary the theory must be completely defined and explained to anyone invited to falsify it.
31. The criteria for judgment of falsification success must be clear from the outset.
32. If Denier shows GHGT violates Stefan-Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
33. If Denier shows GHGT violates a Law of thermodynamics, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
34. If Denier shows GHGT incorrectly uses the law of radiant energy transfer, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
35. If Denier shows a thermostat for Earth adjusting fossil fuel combustion rate is unmeasurable, unobservable or uncontrollable and hence will never work, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
36. If Denier finds one peer reviewed paper by a professor of physics that falsified GHGT, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
37. The Reward Offerer may not be a judge of a Denier’s falsification success since that would be a conflict of interest.
38. Merely having $10,000 does not qualify one to judge the scientific arguments of Deniers.
39. The judges must be identified at the outset, with credentials and agreement on the rules and score keeping.
40. The Reward Offerer must disclose who is financing the reward. Any government financing may be deemed inappropriate by invited Deniers.
41. Since many promoters of GHGT lack credentials and have public records of unprofessional conduct in the debate attempting to elevate GHGT conjecture to scientific Law, like name calling, hate mail, slander, intimidation, threats, and bogus lawsuits, the Reward Offerer should indemnify any contestant from harm, including from government. Guaranteeing anonymity is a minimum.
42. What assurance do Deniers have the Reward Offerer will designate someone a winner and grant Award rather than arbitrarily reject all responses?
43. Will Reward Offerer publish results and acknowledge Denier successfully showed GHGT remains unproven?
44. If it looks like a scam email offer of a free lunch, it probably is. There is no such thing as a free lunch either.
45. Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law gives temperature of any radiating body with emissivity e < 1 as T = 100(I/5.67e)0.25. Earth’s global emissivity is difficult to measure or determine, but Standard Global Climate Model uses e = 0.612. It increases with content of radiating gases like H2O and CO2. (It goes down with T.) Since e is in the denominator, if e increases, T decreases. That proves CO2 has a small global cooling effect.
46. GHGT underlying global warming and climate change claims is thereby falsified. Forever. By scientific method.
47. Since there are many proofs the GHGT is false in the peer reviewed literature and internet since 1997, the fact Reward Offerer is making this offer in 2014 proves he is unfamiliar with the literature. He can be excused since the literature on GHGT, global warming and climate change is in such a poor intellectual state.
48. When Reward Offerer fulfills all these conditions for a fair contest according to the scientific method, Deniers should consider teaching GHGT Promoters how to reject unproven theories and claiming the award.
49. Until then Deniers are free to assume the Reward Offer is not legitimate and they may rightfully claim it.
50. Since I just did falsify GHGT throughout and precisely in item 43, I claim the $10,000 as rightfully mine.

Anonymous Chemical Process Control Engineer, PhD, PE


Response:

Lots of words, little substance. What I have found is submissions with only a few words are due to the person not knowing what the are talking about. Submissions with lots of words are due to people not knowing what they are talking about, but want to deceive everyone else into thinking they do. This one qualifies in that regard. I will state it right from the beginning, I believe this individual lied about being a Ph.D. It really is that bad.

Almost every bullet has a problem, but I will focus on just the most egregious.
10. Since GHGT promoters still call it a theory, they acknowledge it is not a Law.
11. Since some GHGT promoters claim it is not falsifiable, they place it in the realm of religion, superstition or politics. This is evidence they accept it is not a Law.
12. Science has clear criteria standards to be met before a theory is considered true. Engineering profession has additional standards.
13. Both sets of standards must be satisfied before GHGT is deemed proven; if any one criterion is not satisfied, it is not proven.
14. Since there are a number of evolving attempts to define the GHGT, there is no accepted standard version.
15. Therefore a correct one is not finally offered for rebuttal. No proposed unique GHGT exists. Without a uniqueness proof, it must be held false.
This is a case of someone thinking they are clever and trying to mislead the audience. To begin with, 'global warming theory' is a term to cover all of the science involved in the subject. It is not some single, all-inclusive theory the submitter is trying to claim it is. In this regard, the submitter has failed completely and totally because he has failed to address the thousands of different theories involved, each of which has been examined by the scientific community and found to be valid. By claiming there is a single "GHGT" that needs only one flaw to be found false, he is either showing his lack of understanding of science, deliberately trying to deceive the audience, or both. Until he can address each and every one of the thousands and thousands of scientific discoveries made over a period of centuries by thousands of different scientists, this line of logic is completely invalid. 

17. Since Earth’s atmosphere is a chemical process system, chemical engineers holding degrees from accredited universities and professional licenses from State governments are qualified to be Deniers.
Again, an effort to deceive. No one needs any kind of accreditation to be a denier or skeptic of AGW. If you wish to believe man made global warming is not real you are free to do so and I am not trying to stop you or interfere with that right. I am merely providing a venue for contrarians to do what they say they can do. If I can also provide a scientifically rationale argument for the general public to help them understand the fraud behind the contrarian arguments, then that is a good thing. But, you don't need anyone's permission to accept, or reject, the science. And, to be clear, he never, at any time, showed that he has a degree from an accredited university or a professional license from any state government. So, just how are we to know he is some kind of qualified denier?

20. Since GHGT claims anthropogenic CO2 causes catastrophic global warming and climate change, the terms catastrophic, climate and change must be quantified scientifically, mathematically, before they can reasonably be denied.
I suspect this guy is a lawyer and not some engineer because he is making stupid semantic arguments instead of scientific ones. Further, his statements are so flawed that I doubt he is a Ph.D. Just look at this statement. Climate science is not claiming CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. We are claiming it is leading to global warming - leave off the catastrophic. That is a strawman that contrarians throw out there to divert the discussion. What the science shows (one of those theories he conveniently omitted to mention in his single GHGT claim) is that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and then reradiates it out.  As more CO2 is added, more IR radiation will be absorbed and reradiated instead of going straight out into space. Oh, by the way, this is all quantified scientifically, mathematically and even experimentally. Again, something he failed to mention. One more reason I think this individual is not the Ph.D. he claims to be.

21. Correlation does not prove causation. That breaks the foundation of GHGT.
This has become the rallying cry of many contrarians, especially when they can't discuss the science. It is a sure sign they don't know what they are talking about. What the statement means is that we can look at one variable and find it changes in accordance with another variable, but that does not mean they are related.  A couple of classic examples are the idea you can predict the stock market based on the length of women's skirts or predict the outcome of the presidential election based on what conference the Super Bowl winner plays in. The flaw in this statement, and the evidence that they really don't know what they are talking about, is the idea that thousands and thousands of scientists were all fooled and it takes this one person to point it out to them. Whenever someone makes this statement they are, in essence, stating they are a better scientist than all of the scientists in the world. Why would anyone think that all of the scientists involved in anything having to do with climate science do not understand this principle? To make it clear, yes, we understand the idea and very serious work is done to investigate it. We do, in fact, look for the cause, not the correlation.

24. Unintended consequences must be identified, according to the Precautionary Principle.
25. Actual financial damages from anthropogenic CO2 must be quantified. Otherwise the catastrophe denial exercise is futile punching as a ghost.
 No and no. In fact, NO and NO. This is a huge effort to deceive the audience without even a single bit of truth to them. First, science is not required, or even suggested, to be required to adhere to the Precautionary Principle. This is a policy that applies mostly to governments or other people that are acting on behest of a group of others. Further, there is no burden at all on science to identify the financial risks, or rewards (funny how he left out how we will actually benefit from addressing this problem) of the science. Science is just that, the understanding of nature. We do not sit in the laboratory and think, "I wonder how this will affect the stock holders?"

27. Photosynthesis is cooling and CO2 consuming chemical reaction neglected by GHGT. CO2 is green plant food, an important Law of science neglected by GHGT
More work to deliberately deceive the audience. If this person is truly a Ph.D. he would be fully versed in the fact that it is very much considered by climate scientists and we even have satellites in orbit with instruments that allow us to measure this activity. That does not sound like it qualifies as 'neglected' to me. 

29. The proposed theory must predict behavior in nature which is verified by observation measurement. This has not been done, so GHGT must be deemed false.
Again, he is either falsifying his credentials, deliberately attempting to deceive the audience, or both. Take a look here.

 30. In summary the theory must be completely defined and explained to anyone invited to falsify it.
This is not my problem. The challenge was to people making the claim AGW is not real and they can prove it. This guy seems to be making my point - No, you can't prove it, so stop saying you can.

32. If Denier shows GHGT violates Stefan-Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
33. If Denier shows GHGT violates a Law of thermodynamics, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
34. If Denier shows GHGT incorrectly uses the law of radiant energy transfer, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
35. If Denier shows a thermostat for Earth adjusting fossil fuel combustion rate is unmeasurable, unobservable or uncontrollable and hence will never work, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
36. If Denier finds one peer reviewed paper by a professor of physics that falsified GHGT, that would be sufficient. This has been done.
This is an outright lie. All of these things have been proposed as proof that man made global warming is not real (many of them as submissions to the challenge) and all of them have been debunked. He goes and makes the claim that they have been done with no supporting evidence. If they have been done, where have they been done? Why doesn't he provide the proof himself? After all, he's a Ph.D. isn't he? He is qualified to be a denier, isn't he? Or, so he says. He can't show you any supporting evidence (SURPRISE!), but I can (ANOTHER SURPRISE!). Look hereOr, here. Or, here. Or, here. Or, here. Or, check out the submissions to the challenge here. This is just a very easy list. There is literally more science out there debunking his claims than I can list, but it is all very easy for anyone to find as much science on a topic as they wish, including a supposed Ph.D. So, why didn't he? The challenge required using the scientific method. Making claims it "has been done" does not come anywhere close to that standard.

37. The Reward Offerer may not be a judge of a Denier’s falsification success since that would be a conflict of interest.
38. Merely having $10,000 does not qualify one to judge the scientific arguments of Deniers.
39. The judges must be identified at the outset, with credentials and agreement on the rules and score keeping.
40. The Reward Offerer must disclose who is financing the reward. Any government financing may be deemed inappropriate by invited Deniers.
41. Since many promoters of GHGT lack credentials and have public records of unprofessional conduct in the debate attempting to elevate GHGT conjecture to scientific Law, like name calling, hate mail, slander, intimidation, threats, and bogus lawsuits, the Reward Offerer should indemnify any contestant from harm, including from government. Guaranteeing anonymity is a minimum.
42. What assurance do Deniers have the Reward Offerer will designate someone a winner and grant Award rather than arbitrarily reject all responses?
43. Will Reward Offerer publish results and acknowledge Denier successfully showed GHGT remains unproven?
44. If it looks like a scam email offer of a free lunch, it probably is. There is no such thing as a free lunch either.
All of these comments, numbers 37-44, are strawman claims to divert the subject of discussion. They have nothing to do with proving man made global warming is not real, so why is he including them here other than to divert attention from his lack of scientific evidence? But, I will address them, just to show how silly he is. He is, again, totally wrong in just about everything he says.

#37. First, it is my challenge, so, yes, I get to be the judge if I want to be the judge.

#38. Merely having $10,000 allows me to make the challenge (see my previous sentence about being the judge).

#39. The judge was identified from the outset  - me. The rules were set out clearly in the challenge.

#40. I did identify who is funding the challenge. I stated I would give $10,000 of my own money.

#41. I see no reason to grant anyone anonymity that doesn't specifically request it (some did and I complied). Even fraudulent Ph.D. chemical engineers can request it. As for the personal attacks, that is the strategy of the denier community. Just look through the comments and submissions on this blog to see that for yourself.

#42. The only assurance they have is the fact that I have stated that I will post all submissions with my response for all the world to see. If I don't live up to the claim, it will be there for everyone to see.

#43. I answered this in my previous sentence. If anyone successfully shows AGW is not real, I will post it and acknowledge it. So far, no one has provided anything that is even remotely close. Including this one.

#44. There is no scam. Like I said, everything is there for everyone to see. But, in order for it to be a scam I would have to be taking something from the submitters without giving something in return that was promised. The challenge is free of charge and is open to anyone that wishes to submit. They are also free to not make a submission without fear of losing anything. They can even voice their belief without making a submission. And, all submissions and responses are posted for all to see.


45. Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law gives temperature of any radiating body with emissivity e < 1 as T = 100(I/5.67e)0.25. Earth’s global emissivity is difficult to measure or determine, but Standard Global Climate Model uses e = 0.612. It increases with content of radiating gases like H2O and CO2. (It goes down with T.) Since e is in the denominator, if e increases, T decreases. That proves CO2 has a small global cooling effect.
If there had been any remaining doubt in my mind that this person is a fraud this one comment would have removed it for me. But, I had already concluded he was a fraud before this, so no real damage done in that respect.

There are all sorts of issues with what he says here, but let's focus on just the one, fatal, flaw. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is wavelength dependent, meaning you get a different result with different wavelengths. This is not to say S-B is invalid, it means that it shows that there is a different result with different wavelengths of radiation. If you include the difference between short-wavelength sunlight and long-wavelength IR radiation, what you get is that Earth is getting warmer due to CO2, not cooler. In fact, his line of reasoning shows the exact opposite of what he is claiming because he is showing more energy is coming in than is going out. Really, a Ph.D. in chemical process control engineering would know all of this.

46. GHGT underlying global warming and climate change claims is thereby falsified. Forever. By scientific method.
47. Since there are many proofs the GHGT is false in the peer reviewed literature and internet since 1997, the fact Reward Offerer is making this offer in 2014 proves he is unfamiliar with the literature. He can be excused since the literature on GHGT, global warming and climate change is in such a poor intellectual state.
48. When Reward Offerer fulfills all these conditions for a fair contest according to the scientific method, Deniers should consider teaching GHGT Promoters how to reject unproven theories and claiming the award.
49. Until then Deniers are free to assume the Reward Offer is not legitimate and they may rightfully claim it.
50. Since I just did falsify GHGT throughout and precisely in item 43, I claim the $10,000 as rightfully mine.
This is a classic example of why I stated the challenge had to conform to the scientific method. Statements like "there are many proofs" do not qualify under the scientific method. If there are so many proofs, why didn't he supply some of them? Even one?

I particularly love the claim in #46 that AGW is 'thereby falsified. Forever.' What an incredibly stupid thing to say. He not only rejects science today, but he is rejecting all science that will ever come about.

He did not prove man made global warming is not real. Forever.