Guest post by Alec Rawls (see part 1)
Ex-physics teacher Christopher Keating, who strongly believes that human activity is causing dangerous global warming, is offering $30,000 to anyone who can prove that “claims of man-made climate change” are not supported by the science. What claims? He gives as an example the IPCC’s central assertion that: “It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Easy money (if he would actually give it, but that is secondary). There are several grounds, already laid out by a variety of skeptics, why this claim of extreme scientific certainty is prima facie unscientific.
The climate models that give rise to the IPCC’s human-attribution claim also predicted that the rapid continued rise in CO2 would cause rapid continued warming. After 15+ years of no warming these models are on the verge, or past the verge, of falsification. That is the extreme opposite of certainty, and in a series of desperate attempts to stave off falsification the IPCC’s “settled science” now hinges on a parade of freshly concocted and highly speculative possible explanations for the “pause,” such as Kevin Trenberth’s hypothesis that the warming is hiding in the deepest oceans. Sorry, but if your theory fails in the absence of freshly concocted and highly uncertain further theories then it is not well established and highly certain.
The IPCC’s attribution claim was actually produced, not by a scientific evaluation at all, but by a political process, driven by the representatives of numerous governments that see the demonization and taxing of CO2 as a vast untapped source of tax revenue. As will be seen below, this political influence is well documented. The attribution claim is part of the Summary for Policymakers which has a long history of contradicting the findings of the scientific review. So of course the attribution claim is not scientific, when it is not even arrived at by a scientific process.
Beyond the prima facie case the IPCC “consensus” works deep and profound perversions of the scientific method that require more detailed exposition. That will be part 3, but the overt conflicts with scientific reason and evidence are sufficient in themselves to prove that, given the current state of knowledge, any attribution of most post 1950’s warming to the human burning of fossil fuels must be highly uncertain, the opposite of the IPCC’s assertion of extreme certainty.
Evidence against a hypothesis logically decreases the certainty that it is correct
As climatologist Judith Curry notes: “[s]everal key elements of [AR5] point to a weakening of the case for attributing [post-1950] warming of human influences.” She lists:
■ Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
■ Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
■ Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
■ Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
■ Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming
Yet in the face of this buildup of contrary evidence, documented in its own report, the IPCC increased its claimed level of certainty that post-1950 warming was human caused [emphasis added by Curry]:
■ AR4 (2007): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% confidence) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases.” (SPM AR4)
■ AR5 (2013) SPM: “It is extremely likely (>95% confidence) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century .” (SPM AR5)
The change in AR5’s attribution claim runs opposite to the evidence it put forward. Going against the evidence is not science. It is anti-science.
The IPCC’s attribution claims are the product of a political process, not a scientific one
Judgments about science issued by a political process could happen to agree with sound scientific judgment. The political nature of the IPCC’s attribution claim does not itself prove that this claim is at odds with the science, but understanding the influence of politics is still very important to understanding the unscientific nature of the IPCC’s claims.
Believers (“consensoids” if one prefers), are often aghast that there are all these skeptics out there who don’t trust scientists. This is particularly true of believers like Keating who are not themselves familiar (see part 1) with the actual points of scientific debate . They are stumped by the “why” of distrust and think it has to be that skeptics are just anti-science. The political nature of the IPCC, and the politicized nature climate science in general, explain the “why.”
Not only is climate science close to 100% government funded but in the United States that government funding is all channeled through funding structures set up by Vice President Gore to finance only those who agreed with Gore’s CO2-centric views. Internationally funding is channeled by the funding structures put in place by Canadian leftist and IPCC-founder Maurice Strong. Is it really hard to understand how a research effort that is 100% politically funded could become politicized?
The IPCC is a politicized body that sits at the top of this heap of politicized science and bends its declarations in an even more politicized direction, especially in the Summary for Policymakers. As seen above, AR5’s increased certainty of human attribution runs directly counter to the evidence that it presents, but this is just the latest increment of political interference. Where did AR4’s “very likely” claim of human attribution come from, and TAR’s “likely” claim?
It all traces back to the first human-attribution claim in the Summary of the Second Area Report (1995), which ran strongly counter to the scientific report, which was then edited to conform with the politically negotiated Summary. This case was recently discussed here at WUWT by Tim Ball:
An early example of SPM increased alarmism occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, graduate from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and shortly thereafter lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,
“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
to read,
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
As planned the phrase “discernible human influence” became the headline.
This scandal was first exposed in a June 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed by Frederich Seitz:
In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. …
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
■ “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
■ “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
■ “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report’s lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.
That shook out information from inside the IPCC, as noted by Fred Singer in another WSJ op-ed:
“IPCC officials,” quoted (but not named) by Nature, claim that the reason for the revisions to the chapter was “to ensure that it conformed to a ‘policymakers’ summary’ of the full report….” Their claim begs the obvious question: Should not a summary conform to the underlying scientific report rather than vice versa?
Santer’s defense of the changes he had made to the peer-reviewed report is highly revealing. He pled that the IPCC rules were designed to allow and even require that the final report be changed in response to political input from governments and NGOs after the scientific report had been completed:
All IPCC procedural rules were followed in producing the final, now published, version of the Chapter 8. The changes made after the Madrid IPCC meeting in November 1995 were in response to written review comments received in October and November 1995 from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations. They were also in response to comments made by governments and non-governmental organizations during plenary sessions of the Madrid meeting. IPCC procedures required changes in response to these comments, in order to produce the best-possible and most clearly explained assessment of the science.
Okay, so the whole thing is designed from the outset to be a political document not a scientific document, resulting from a political process not a scientific process, and as we well know, politicians tend to have their own strongly preferred conclusions. The environmentalist component is overwhelmingly anti-capitalist (at a UN-backed conference in Venezuela this week: “130 Environmental Groups Call For An End To Capitalism”), and a much broader spectrum of politicians are eager for expanded government revenues and government control, both of which are served by the demonization of CO2.
These same politicians also control who gets scientific funding in the first place, but the IPCC, and in particular its Summaries, are markedly more unscientific still. The history of the IPCC’s attribution claims prove that these politicized judgments have not managed to comport with scientific reason and evidence but have worked persistently to overthrow it. AR5 fits squarely in that train, asserting increased certainty that humans caused most recent warming when the scientific evidence they put forward points to decreased certainty.
The actual scientific question at the present moment is whether the “consensus” climate models have been definitively falsified by the lack of 21st century warming
Even Ben Santer has had to admit that this is the case, putting off claims that the “consensus” models had already been falsified by offering in 2011 a falsification criterion of 17 years with no warming:
Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
Santer and his colleagues are leaving themselves some wiggle room by saying “at least,” but they are clearly admitting that at 17 years the models should be near falsification, which is where we are now.
In a 2013 interview with Der Spiegel German climate scientist Hans Von Storch summarized the difficulty that the “consensus” view is now facing:
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
Both of these explanations are devastating to the IPCC’s attribution claims, and it pretty much has to be both. If late 20th century warming was not caused by CO2 it has to have been caused by something else, like the 80 year grand maximum of solar-magnetic activity that began in the early 1920’s and ended just about when “the pause” began.
Some solar scientists claim that 20th century solar activity was merely “high” without warranting the “grand maximum” label, but that is a distinction without a difference. Whether “high” or “grand,” since we don’t yet understanding all of the ways that living inside the sun’s extended corona might affect global temperature (and there is the rub, that this understanding is still very immature), 80 years of any high level of solar activity could very well account for most or all of the modest warming over this period.
There could also be purely internal sources of natural variation, unforced by external influences from either mankind or the sun. These could be merely oscillations in how much of the heat-content of the climate system is present in surface temperatures or they could be self-reinforcing processes that alter heat content (see Bob Tisdale’s theory of El Nino driven warming). The deeper problem with the IPCC is the unscientific grounds on which it has dismissed these competing theories.
It claims certainty for its politically preferred CO2-driven theory when the actual evidence points overwhelmingly in the other directions. CO2 is the least likely of the available explanations. There is actually no evidence that feedback effects are even positive. The proclaimed evidence is purely circular (climate sensitivity estimates that are based on the assumption that warming was caused by CO2), making it a classic petito principi, but that is part 3.
For the prima facie case it is sufficient to note that if natural cooling can be responsible for “the pause” it can also be “the cause” (to quote The Hockey Schtick) of late 20th century warming. Keating himself explains “the pause” as a result of natural cooling effects that must at least be similar in strength to the hypothesized human warming effects:
Christopher Keating, June 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM
What I believe I said is that we are in a natural occurring cooling period. In other words, if it wasn’t for us, the climate would be cooling right now. All of the warming above the average (actually, above what it would be without us) is due to the effects of our greenhouse gas emissions.
Somehow it doesn’t dawn on him that if ill-understood forces of natural temperature change can be at least as strong as the hypothesized human effects in the cooling direction then they could also be responsible for the two decades of warming that the IPCC is attributing to human effects, and there goes your certainty.
The two sides of Keating’s “option 1” are sides of a coin
In addition to challenging skeptics to prove that the lack of scientific support for the IPCC’s extreme certainty that most post 50’s warming was human caused Keating’s “option 1” also asks skeptics to prove the lack of scientific support for the IPCC’s climate sensitivity claim, that:
Climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C and extremely unlikely (95-100%) less than 1°C.
These to halves of “option 1” are sides of a coin. What is driving falsification is the conflict between the high climate sensitivity necessary for the very small CO2 forcing to explain late 20th century warming and the low climate sensitivity necessary for the lack of 21st century warming to be consistent with the continued rapid increase in CO2. If these two sensitivity requirements can’t be reconciled then the theory of human caused warming collapses, and right now, they are very close to un-reconcilable.
“Settled Science” now stands on the strength of one newly concocted speculation after another
To save their CO2-driven climate models from falsification by “the pause,” “consensus” scientists have been offering a string of highly speculative rationales for how human caused warming could still be dominant, even though it is not showing up in surface temperatures. An early example was the 2010 “missing heat” paper by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo, described in this UCAR press release:
“MISSING” HEAT MAY AFFECT FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE
April 15, 2010
BOULDER—Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a “Perspectives” article in this week’s issue of Science. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this “missing” heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system.
“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”
Nice, a falsification dodge that won’t be falsifiable until we build a more extensive ocean monitoring system, but four years later what little evidence there is about the deep oceans is pointing in the other direction: they are cooling, not warming. .
However that turns out, if the viability of the CO2-dominant theory hinges on a highly uncertain new speculation then the theory itself cannot be more certain than that new speculation. There have been a host of such rescue attempts: that Chinese coal burning is causing the pause, that the Montreal Protocol caused the pause, that volcanic aerosols caused the pause, that a slow down in Pacific trade winds caused the pause, and on and on.
All are highly speculative, thus none can confer any significant level of certainty on the otherwise now highly uncertain IPCC attribution claim. Von Storch again:
So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
But they didn’t confront it. They ignored this “serious scientific problem” and pretended that their human-warming theory had been strengthened, not weakened, by developments since AR4. This fixed determination to ignore the available reason and evidence is the opposite of science.
The unscientific and anti-scientific nature of the IPCC’s attribution claims is unambiguous. They are asserting extreme and increasing certainty as the foundations of their CO2-dominant theory are on or past the verge of falsification. The only degree of certainty they can legitimately assess is very low. It is certainly not extremely high, and if Keating has any integrity he will admit it.
…human-warming theory had been strengthened, not weakened, by developments since AR4. This fixed determination to ignore the available reason and evidence is the opposite of science.
————
Against ignorance, even the gods contend in vain.
you havent met his challenge.
(Reply: It isn’t the challenge, it’s Keating assigning himself the roles of judge, jury, and executioner. That is unethical. -mod)
A question to be asked to Christopher Keating: What’s empiri and have you studied Theories of Science or only forgotten all but the fallacies???? Fallacies can’t be used to prove anything but lack of sound arguments…..
Santer and his colleagues are leaving themselves some wiggle room by saying “at least,” but they are clearly admitting that at 17 years the models should be near falsification, which is where we are now.
====
I don’t agree with that at all…
We’ve only had GCM’s for less than 24 years….and they are updated regularly
Even 12 years is past their 1/2 way point……
Those stupid computer games were falsified years ago.
“The only degree of certainty they can legitimately assess is very low. It is certainly not extremely high, and if Keating has any integrity he will admit it.”
Admit it???? Not bloody likely. He is a cAGW-religous zealot
Where did Keating publish his offer? Someone should take him up on it, then sue for payment. Then if he can’t pay the lawyer bill, he’ll have to cough up.
Alec fundamentally misunderstands the challenge
Suppose I told you that more than 5% of the murders were due to guns, and I offered as proof
“because god said so”
and then I offered you 30000 dollars to prove using the scientific method that my statement was false.
And you responding by attacking MY argument.
well you fail the challenge
In short, the IPPC may hold TRUE POSITIONS, but give bad or wrong reasons for holding those positions.
The challenge isnt to find the holes in their argument.
The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.
good luck.
Hey, you have to watch the pea with the IPPC:
■ AR4 (2007): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% confidence) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases.” (SPM AR4)
■ AR5 (2013) SPM: “It is extremely likely (>95% confidence) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century .” (SPM AR5)
Get it? There are more sure but not of the same thing. This is PR spin , not science.
“Most of” was clearly defined in AR4 as > 50%.
What does “dominant” mean? Bigger than. But bigger than what ?
AGW > natural , that is not stated , so we can’t assume. We’re supposed to assume but it’s not stated.
Or does it mean :
AGW > ENSO
AGW > AMO
AGW > PDO
AGW > solar
AGW > lunar
But hang on in AR5 they did not say AGW either, they moved the goal posts and refer to human influence.
So having moved from GHG to human influence and from “most of ” to “dominant” they go for gold with 95% certain.
They give the false impression that they are even more certain than last time but they are not talking about the same thing.
In fact it’s all rather uncertain what they are so certain about.
I was most amazed by IPCC AR5’s TS.6 Key Uncertainties. It seems to me that the authors of TS.6 didn’t compare notes with the authors of the summary for policymakers. The low level of certainty admitted by TS.6 in so many key areas was just baffling, completely contradicting the confident tone of the summary.
Alec,
Maybe you are planning on this later, but as a further refutation of IPCC claims I think the missing global warming ‘hotspot’ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/) should also be highlighted.
If the IPCC models are correct, the hotspot should exist. The hotspot doesn’t exist therefore the model are operating incorrectly.
Steven Mosher writes:
No it isn’t. The challenge in Keating’s option 1 is to prove that the IPCC’s radical claims of human attribution are positively rejected by the available reason and evidence. From Keating’s clarification page:
This does not mean proving that most post ’50s warming was not caused by human activity. It means proving that the claim that human’s caused most post ’50s warming is far from extremely certain. Does Steven think I failed to accomplish this?
Steven Mosher says:
The challenge isnt to find the holes in their argument.
The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.
Actually, skeptics have nothing to prove. Skeptics do not have to show that warming is due to ‘something else’. Their only challenge is to show that the manmade global warming conjecture has no scientific evidence to support it, and to falsify it if possible.
Skeptics have succeeded in showing there is no evidence, in spades. Despite repeated requests for evidence showing the fraction of a degree global warming attributable to human emissions, the alarmist clique has failed miserably. They have no such evidence — they only have their conjecture, which gets weaker by the day.
There is nothing wrong with a conjecture. It is the first step in the scientific method [Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law]. But a conjecture is only an opinion. It is speculation; a guess. And despite 30+ years of searching for any evidence of a ‘fingerprint of AGW’, nothing measurable has ever been found.
There is no science without measurements. Where does that leave the AGW conjecture?
Does anybody know how IPCC arrives at those 90% or 95% confidence levels? Is it by an exact procedure called the vote counting?
There is no science without measurements. Where does that leave the AGW conjecture?
…………….. Nowhere, the basic supposition is incorrect; CO2 will cause global warming, if concentrations in the atmosphere increase by more than the 0.0008% than they already have done!
The science is not settled until the computer models accurately predict global temperature changes,which so far they have not been even close to achieving!
Andrew, I think the science is, indeed, already settled. The entire catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scare was predicated from the beginning on fast rising temperatures on this planet due to rising CO2 emissions from mankind. Well, we have had continual human emissions and rising total concentrations of atmospheric CO2 without any rise in temperatures for 17 or so years now. (and that is using the alarmist’s data sets that mysteriously cool the past and warm the present through “adjustments”)
We have had the grand experiment. We could not have designed it better. Mother nature showed us that CO2 does not control temperature on this planet. We see that the net effect of rising concentrations of CO2 does not raise temperatures. Whatever effect CO2 has, it is too small to measure against the background of the multiple factors that do effect climate on planet earth.
“All of the warming above the average (actually, above what it would be without us) is due to the effects of our greenhouse gas emissions.”
Or some very simple adjustments in historical temperature records around the world.
As was done here in Australia.
Those adjustments accounting for nearly half of our alledged temperature rise of 1.3degrees Celsius last century.
The same sort of adjustments being made in New Zealand and England as well.
And to Americas horror are now being “discovered” there.
While the article was a damned good read, there was a whole lot of pussy footing around the bleeding obvious.
You forgot to mention the word fraud.
Whats it going to take for the people of the world to wake up to the fact they are the victims of the greatest fraud ever enacted on the human race?
This continues to be more and more absurd.
We have a planet greening up, with explosive plant growth, improving vegetative health, increasing crop yields and world food production.
We can show with very high confidence that increasing CO2 is playing a major role…… but that does not matter.
What matters is the theory of catastrophic global warming.
As an operational meteorologist that forecasts global crop production for commodity markets, based on weather and other influences…………….Increasing CO2 is making a positive contribution!!
A big positive contribution!!
Steven Mosher says:
you havent met his challenge.
Please explain how Keating has issued a legitimate challenge.
really??……..
They can’t prove something is….and they want other people to prove it’s not
Seems to me like you would have to first establish what it is….before you can even start to prove it isn’t
@ Alec Rawls
Very interesting and revealing.
I will be forwarding your 3 part essay to my congressional reps. Their staff will unlikely pass it on but at least I can confirm that they well know the IPCC is corrupt. Elections are just around the corner.
You haven’t met his challenge.
Wow.
IPCC is burying this deep these days:
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
From: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
They will probably change the URL now to a deeper obfuscated location to hide their original intentions.
Key phrase: “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” !
If humans do NOT induce climate change then there is no need to “understand[ing] the scientifice basis.
Therefore in the superior supreme superlative intellects of the ‘Above Human Capability’ minds of the IPCC Wolfenstein High Command and their Minions the beloved “The Reviewers”, LSD addicts as portrayed in “Despicable Me”, Humans are the ONLY cause of “climate change and global warming” !
Of course, None of the beloved IPCC Wolfenstein High Command nor the supremely superlative beloved “The Reviewers” have ever taken a university class in Geology ! Why ? They were afraid, AFRAID of failure, and being afraid … they got their “degree”, Ha ha, in ‘Geography’ ! Geography is not a Science; it is a technique, and a vocation, a Photo-op for the well-to-do who have nothing better to do.
[Rest trimmed. Keep it it clean. On ALL threads. .mod]
The fact that CO2 levels continue to rise and the global mean temperature has been flat for the past 18 years is sufficient proof for anyone to collect the $30,000. It’s that simple.
Siberian_husky says:
You haven’t met his challenge.
And you never will. Just ask him.
========================
David L. says:
The fact that CO2 levels continue to rise and the global mean temperature has been flat for the past 18 years is sufficient proof for anyone to collect the $30,000. It’s that simple.
Yes, that is ipso facto true. But the challenger reserves the right to move the goal posts as necessary. Good luck collecting.
The thing is, we are all running on anecdotal, small parts of the argument.
Temperatures aren’t rising as fast as predicted, temperatures are up 0.7C, Arctic sea is declining, the tropical troposphere hotspot is not there, Antarctic sea ice is growing, sea level is rising. ocean heat content is rising, but it is only 33% of that predicted, the deep oceans are cooling instead, the NCDC has distorted the temp record to prove its philosophy.
None of this proves AGW or disproves it. You cannot change anyone’s mind about AGW, let alone win a bet with a left-wing climate-change-believing professor with this evidence. They have chosen to believe. You have make them choose to accept reality instead.
The NCDC will not allow temperatures alone to disprove the theory, so, …
It has to come from the physics. What really happens in the atmosphere when there are 5.6 CO2 molecules per 10,000 versus what really happens in the atmosphere when there are 2.8 CO2 molecules per 10,000. I mean what really happens at the quantum level throughout all levels of the atmosphere from the surface to the exosphere. Someone has to measure what really happens in each picosecond because the “real quantum world” is far more complex than the theory disregards.
It has to be shown that theory is not a correct representation of what really happens.
…this would be a good place to start
New paper unexpectedly finds diverging trends in global temperature & radiative imbalance from greenhouse gases
Unsettled science:
A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the radiative imbalance from greenhouse gases at the top of the atmosphere has increased over the past 27 years while the rate of global warming has unexpectedly decreased or ‘paused’ over the past 15+ years.
This finding contradicts expectations from AGW theory of increased ‘heat trapping’ from increased greenhouse gases. However, the finding is consistent with radiosonde observations showing that outgoing longwave radiation to space from greenhouse gases has unexpectedly increased rather than decreased over the past 62 years, inconsistent with more heat being “trapped” in the mid-upper troposphere.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/07/new-paper-unexpectedly-finds-diverging.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060962/abstract
Alec, thanks for the kind words and link to the introductory post about my book “Who Turned on the Heat?” However, I haven’t presented a theory. I’ve presented data and an interpretation of that data, all of which lead to the reality that ENSO, as a sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator, provided a substantial contribution to the global warming we’ve experienced since the mid-1970s–a contribution that is overlooked by mainstream climate science.
Cheers.
Yes, IPCC’s relative certainties are based on surveys of the participants. IPCC’s stated mandate is clearly and only mankind’s impact on climate, they do not consider natural forcings. It is also curious that all of the survey ratings are variations of likely or unlikely, but the other end from “very unlikely” is not “very likely” but “virtually certain.” Not an accidental choice or change of wording.Took many committee meetings to decide that, I’ll bet. Or maybe just the puppet master.
SIGINT EX says:
July 26, 2014 at 6:00 pm
That is an extremely offensive comment. Sounds like a troll or provocateur. Commenters around these parts are more respectful and do not wish those they disagree with to die.
Steven Mosher writes “The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.”
Wrong. The challenge is to actually use The Scientific Method to show that CAGW is correct. The fact that climate sensitivity has not been and can never be measured, is sufficient to show that nowhere has the IPCC ever used The Scientific Method.
Steven Mosher says:
July 26, 2014 at 4:33 pm
The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.
Well, since no one has shown, using the scientific method, that the warming is due to humans – specifically human CO2 emissions – I’d say the challenge is met by default.
One simply can not disprove that which has not been proved.
Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says: July 26, 2014 at 5:40 pm
“We have had the grand experiment. We could not have designed it better. Mother nature showed us that CO2 does not control temperature on this planet. We see that the net effect of rising concentrations of CO2 does not raise temperatures. Whatever effect CO2 has, it is too small to measure against the background of the multiple factors that do effect climate on planet earth.”
+1 Now the goal is getting enough people to understand the truth.
Hi Alec – many thanks for your lucid and eloquent arguments. I am thoroughly enjoying this series and most of the comments. I don’t think you have a snowflake’s chance in hell of convincing Keating that you are right, no matter how compelling and forthright your argument is. But for those who are not radical ideologues, this logically sound series of essays is a valuable synopsis of some keys in understanding the un-science involved. Thanks again. Looking forward to Part 3.
Ptolemy, you’re wanted on the phone. But it doesn’t matter what “mainstream” Climate Science concocts or speculates as to where the “missing heat” is or what might have acted to nullify its predictions – which can be seen as a version of begging-the question – it still hasn’t got a prediction correct yet. Moreover, even the idea that CO2 is or must be causing a small portion of the increase in warming since 1950 is only speculation or an assumption, until this effect can be found as predicted. At the very least, CO2 does not “drive” the climate.
It is impossible to cover all the numerous arguments thrown out so I will concentrate on a few. First and foremost, I already demonstrated under Part 1 of this comment, using the scientific method, that global greenhouse warming does not exist. Keating now owes me 31,000 dollars for that. The issues in Part 2 that I will cover concern Trenberth’s fantasy of lost heat and temperature after the fifties. Trenberth is easy to demolish. Trenberth and Fasullo published an article in Science of 16th April 2010. According to their graph, eighty percent of global net energy disappeared in four years between 2004 and 2008. If true, that truly is a mystery because neither they nor anyone else has any idea where it went. Fortunately their own paper gives us a clue. According to it, “Since 2004, ~3000 Argo floats have provided regular temperature soundings of the upper 2000 m of the ocean, giving new confidence in the ocean heat content….” That was the first deployment of these floats and it coincides with the start of a catastrophic loss of 80 percent of global energy during the next four years. This shows what buddy review will do to science. If I had been a reviewer of this paper I would have sent them back and told them not to return until they have learnt how the Argo buoys operate. But unfortunately the stupidity of lost energy has gotten into the literature by now. And it is up to mischief because some people are now seriously looking for it in the ocean bottom. Why there you might ask? It is because these bozos (Oh, all right, pseudo-scientists) read Trenberth and think that the heat that should have been warming the air for the last 17 years is hiding in there. That’s enough for lost heat. The article tries to attribute temperature rise after the fifties to anthropogenic greenhouse warming. Anthropogenic it is but not of the greenhouse kind. That temperature rise is fake and that is easy to prove for the period after 1979 when satellite measurements are available. What they have done is to raise the slope of the global temperature curve so that by the beginning of our century it is as much as a tenth of a degree Celsius higher than the real temperature shown by satellites. In the process, they have changed an eighteen year segment between 1979 and 1997 from a horizontal, no warming, segment into a rising temperature segment. Not only that, but they assigned it a solemn designation as “LateTwentieth Century Warming.” It does not even exist except in the fantasy world created by their fakery. My suggestion is not to use any ground-based temperature curves after 1979 when satellite data first became available. Even worse is the fact that these faked temperatures are shared between NOAA, GISS, and HadCRUT from the Met Office. How do I know this? Because they screwed up when they computer processed their database and left traces of processing in the final product. These consists of sharp upward spikes at the beginnings of years. I thought it was noise at first but then I realized that they were at the exact same locations in all three databases. Apparently a cross-oceanic conspiracy to make everybody believe their version of global temperature rise since the fifties. No doubt the earlier times were also processed but I don’t know what to compare them with. Altogether it brings into question any and all warmist conclusions about global warming since the fifties.
I illustrated the lack of proof by pointing out temperature does not equal heat. Nor is it convertible to heat using just what is measured in the proxies. I.e. Tree rings don’t measure pressure etc.
He really didn’t have a response.
Steven Mosher writes “The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.”
FTW?? If that’s the challenge, then it is utterly bogus. It assumes perfect knowledge about gobs of science we have only begun to address, and is a challenge to “prove a a negative”, when humans don’t have the requisite knowledge to do so.
IIRC, the maxim “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” applies to situations such as the AGW theory. It’s up to YOU, Mosher, not us, to provide the positive / confirmable / dispositive evidence, and with each day your theory shows itself not to be able to do that.
It’s you guys, Mosher, who try to pass off speculation, political rhetoric and an untestable/unfalsifiable theory as “science”.
Steven Mosher says:
July 26, 2014 at 4:33 pm
Alec fundamentally misunderstands the challenge
The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.
__________________
I believe it is you who misunderstands the challenge.
The challenge is to prove a negative, specifically “I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.” His challenge and your attempt to restate it are not the same thing. ‘Warming’ isn’t the only way in which the climate can change.
I would submit that no one could use the scientific method to disprove either statement, because neither provide any statement of theory that can be empirically tested.
Mosher writes “The challenge isnt to find the holes in their argument. The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.”
The AGW “scientific” argument of “most” comes completely from the models. So its enough to show the models are faulty to show that the IPCC argument is wrong but that, as you say, doesn’t preclude the IPCC being right for, let just say “other reasons”.
But the null hypothesis is surely that climate changes are “natural” until shown to be otherwise. Thinking this way is Trenberth’s dream to have the null hypothesis changed. Discussing it and offering money doesn’t give the idea validity.
its a classic case of watch the pea.
First Keating is asking for scientific evidence that Claims of man-made climate change are wrong…
Which claims precisely?How were they “proved”?
The example he does offer is actually true.
“Human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”.
Humans are making the weather observations.
The “observed” warming, of the Calculated average global temperature, is entirely the work of man.
Keating will never pay up.
I hereby offer $100 to anyone who can prove that Mosher is not an alien set among us by a hostile race for the express purpose of annoying skeptics into emotional rather than scientific responses and confusing the debate. I submit as evidence that Mr Mosher is:
o Frequently, and by his own admission, deliberately annoying.
o He often leaves cryptic comments that are likely a consequence of translation from an alien language
o His arguments frequently misrepresent the science, and when this is pointed out to him, he rarely responds to defend himself, showing that he doesn’t care what human beings think of him.
o He frequently talks down to people even when he is wrong, evidence that he believes himself to be a member of a superior race
The $100 is up for grabs. Anyone who thinks they have a shot at winning it, I can assure you that you have even less chance of that than of winning Keating’s $30,000.
Wrong cripwell . Read the challenge
You guys don’t get it.
We set the challenge.
You don’t get a vote.
If you were smart you’d attack the sensitivity question.
Like nic Lewis
Otherwise you are just keyboard jockey.
**********************
[Reply: You wrote “we” set the challenge. Are you part of Keating’s “challenge”? — mod]
There are other observations and analysis results in addition to the lack of warming for the last 17 years that support the assertion that the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 17 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2.
High latitude Warming Paradox – The pattern of observed warming in the last 50 years does not match the pattern of warming predicted if CO2 was primary forcing mechanism. This observational fact supports the assertion that 1) something is fundamental incorrect in the CO2 theory and/or modeling and 2) some other forcing function that is capable of causing high latitude warming caused the majority of the warming in the last 50 years.
CO2 concentration varies less than 4% with latitude. Therefore the potential (the word potential is used as the actual forcing is determined by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space at the latitude in question prior to the increase in CO2) for CO2 forcing with latitude should be roughly constant.
In the tropics the actual forcing due to the CO2 increase (based on the warmist theory not on observation) should be proportionally larger than other latitudes on the planet, as the potential for forcing due to the increase in CO2 is roughly the same in the equatorial region and there is the largest amount of long wave radiation (the multiplier that determines the magnitude of forcing before feedbacks) that is emitted off to space in the tropics and as there is amply water in the equatorial region to amplify the CO2 forcing based on the warmist theory.
The observations do not support the assertion that warming in the last 70 years was caused by increases in atmospheric CO2. The temperature anomaly in the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics (not including the tropical region) is 4 times greater the temperature anomaly of the tropics and twice the temperature anomaly of the planet as whole. This same temperature pattern occurs during a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles where not caused by changes to CO2. The same forcing function (modulation of planetary cloud cover by solar magnetic cycle changes) caused the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and caused the warming in the last 70 years.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth by Douglass and Christy
(William: Very interesting paper.)
“If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels 2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].”
“We have examined the temperature anomalies at the various latitudes enumerated above for three data sets: HadCRUT3v, and MSU_LT from UAH and from RSS. All show similar behavior. However, as explained above, we only present the results from MSU_LT_UAH.”
Figure 2 shows the UAH_LT anomalies for NoExtropics, Tropics, SoExtropics and Global. The average trends over the range 1979-2007 are 0.28, 0.08, 0.06 and 0.14 ºK/decade respectively. If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing.”
“Latitude bands. The temperature anomaly data can be partitioned into averages over latitude bands that are used in this paper. There are the familiar global (85S-85N) and tropical (20S-20N) latitude bands. North of the equator there are: NH(0-85N), ExTropics (20N-85N), and NoPol (60N-85N). There are corresponding latitude bands south of the equator.”
davidmhoffer says:
July 26, 2014 at 8:52 pm
===============
Don’t encourage him 🙂
The following is another observation and analysis (that supports the assertion that there are fundamental errors in the CO2 theory and/or modeling) in addition to 1) Lack of warming for 17 years, 2) the latitudinal warming paradox, 3) the fact that there is cyclic warming in the paleo record that was not due to CO2 changes, that correlates with past solar magnetic cycle changes and that arming matches the same pattern of warming that was observed in the last 50 years:
“The missing tropospheric hot spot paradox”
Where is the hot spot that the CO2 theory predicts and that is require to amplify warming in the tropics. There is no observed tropic troposphere hot spot.
(Spencer’s comparison of general circulation model’s predicted tropospheric temperatures to measured tropospheric temperatures.)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions by Douglass et al.
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
If he had any integrity?
Integrity is obsolete, inconvenient and optional in the AGW movement.
Isn’t it amazing that when any of these alarmists try to delve into real science or scientific argument, the “C” in “CAGW” gets dropped like a hot potato? The problem is meant to be Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming. AGW is not a problem unless it is catastrophic by their own argument. That is why they say we need to divert all these resources and do have all of this control because it is going to be a catastrophe.
Keating is trying to achieve the following; make a challenge that cannot be won about something that has no mention of any scale of the apparent problem and then use that to justify alarmism for a problem that never was by brining the term “catastrophic” back into the “call to arms” to save humanity.
By all means play if you want to, but you will never see any of that money.
There is a different, simpler approach to evaluating the IPCC claims.
The claims of the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are based on the GCMs, climate models. To understand how this qualifies as science, we only need to review one of Richard Feynman’s TV lectures where he described how to build and test a scientific theory.
1. First you guess the theory.
2. Then you calculate it to determine the results if the theory is valid.
3. Then you test the results experimentally, i.e. compare the results with real-world data
1. The Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is based mainly on the optical properties of so-called Greenhouse Gases (GHGs).
a. Greenhouse gas emissions cause climate to change in the direction of warming. The effect of CO2 and CH4 is to warm the Earth by the process of conversion of visible light into infra-red light, which has an exothermic effect. (Photons drop to a lower state of kinetic energy and emit heat in the process.)
b. Warming increases the amount of water vapor, a greenhouse gas. This amplifies the effect of CO2 and CH4, a phenomenon called positive feedback.
c. The quantum of GHG emissions from burning fossil fuels is sufficient to overwhelm:
i) natural homeostatic processes (negative feedback mechanisms).
ii) solar and cosmic-related processes.
(iii) carbon sinks, including endothermic processes such as photosynthesis.
(iv) internal variability of the climate system.
2. The theory may be validated by comparison with observations. The time frame is important.
a. The time frame for the initial validation of AGW is essentially the 20-year period from the late 1970’s until the start of the super-El Niño that peaked in 1998. The reasoning is this: GHG emissions did not begin to increase dramatically until after 1950. And the period from 1950 to mid-1970 was not marked by substantial warming. Thus the AGW.
b. The time frame for validating the projections should similarly be 20 years. Both tests should The adjust for the super El Niño that peaked in 1998 because the ENSO is not part of the AGW theory. As a consequence, the periods to be compared should be 20 years from 1978-1997 and 20 years from 1999-2018.
For a graph of El Niño 1997-1998, see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/05/the-1998-super-el-nino-possibly-a-rouge-wave/ .
c. It is still to early by about four years to claim that the data has falsified the AGW theory. But. It seems probable that the data from the next four years will falsify the AGW theory.
d. The various explanations offered by climate scientists to save the AGW theory are not acceptable because of .1(c),(d),(e) and (f) above. These explanations, if valid would signify the end of AGW as a theory and the need to reconstruct the CGMs based on new theories.
Conclusion:
The models as they stand have been designed to project the consequences of the AGW theory. If the AGW theory is falsified by the end of the 20-year tesing period, then the models have to be scrapped and rebuilt to incorporate new assumptions (guesses) about both GHG’s and natural phenomena..
This follows from the last part of Richard Feynman’s explanation about how science works. No matter how elegant the theory and how distinguished its proponents, if the theory does not explain the empirical observations, it has failed and must be replaced by a better theory.
Recent scientific papers have demonstrated that the IPCC projections are false in detail both in the nature of the climate changes and in climate sensitivity to GHGs. Nevertheless, the theory will likely stand until the hiatus in global warming has endured until 2018 or global cooling is observed.
In my opinion, if the theory continues to be advanced beyond 2018 without clear confirmation by the observations, its proponents will have moved from science to pseudo-science.
“He gives as an example the IPCC’s central assertion that: “It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
If that is simply an assertion, then where is the scientific evidence to not just support but prove that statement?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
Note the key words in this statement: “that we have assumed”; “not as great as we have believed”. Not scientific evidence, simply assumptions and beliefs.
So where is the scientific evidence to support the IPCC statement above?
And the IPCC places their bet very cautiously: Climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C and extremely unlikely (95-100%) less than 1°C.
So even if human influence is less than 1 degree, the warmists can still say we allowed for that possibility. Therefore their statement cannot be disproved.
Says the computer illiterate clown with no scientific background. I am confused as to why you believe anyone would be interested in advice from someone who consistently does not know what they are talking about?
“Anyone that uses NIPCC or anything else associated with the Heartland Institute is going to be automatically wrong. That is how corrupt that organization is.” – Christopher Keating
ROFLMAO, another clown, just ignore him.
Steven Mosher is right about one thing – you will never win this by attacking the IPCC. You could disprove one of their assertions and all it would do is show that their reasoning for supporting AGW is flawed. However that would not disprove AGW, it would just show that their argument is weak. To win this you would have to construct a case completely independently of what the IPCC says.
Steven Mosher writes “The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.”
– – –
Climate science is kinda special, like many of your comments. We can’t do regular experiments like you can do when exploring most phenomena by changing variables and seeing what happens. We can’t reproduce another earth and run an experiment with different levels of CO2.
Now I know you are fond of computer models, well so am I, but I’m a computer scientists and know an awful lot about computer models capabilities. We may still be decades away from having an adequate climate model of the Earth.
As an aside, I worked with the betas of Windows NT, and Windows 95 while also struggling to learn C++, the Win32 API, and a complicated software development project that’s an order of magnitude more difficult than climate science software such as GC watchyamacallits.
Only time and more data collection is going to resolve this debate.
Steven Mosher:
I was thinking that David Hoffer was right and you are some kind of weird alien creature intent on mere disruption, and then I read your post at July 26, 2014 at 9:03 pm which says in total
OH! I do “get” that!
You think scientific questions are decided by those who “get a vote”.
If your attention span were sufficient for you to have read the above essay by Alec Rawls then you would have learned that such political activity is the antithesis of how a scientific conclusion is reached.
Science is NOT a democracy.
The “sensitivity issue” is secondary, and I mention it in my submission in response to Keating’s “challenge” (I submitted my response href=ADDRESS>http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/announcing-deadline-for-challenges.html and Keating lists it as an accepted response here).
What “nic Lewis” chooses to do is his business, and your invitation to discuss it is pure trolling; i.e. your attempt to side-track discussion is typical behaviour from you.
The major issue is
Keating has challenged people to refute the AGW-hypothesis by use of the scientific method.
There are several potential ways to fulfill that challenge. And your inability to understand the issue is not surprising because the issue pertains to use of the scientific method when you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don’t have even the foggiest notion of what the scientific method is.
Richard
Mosher’s broken record plays: “The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans. good luck.”
(A) Done once (identical trend continuation in most of the oldest real thermometer records):
http://s6.postimg.org/uv8srv94h/id_AOo_E.gif
(B) Done twice (identical trend continuation in nearly all old tide gauge records, including the world average of them):
http://s23.postimg.org/47l8f5jvf/Tide_Gauges_Eye_Candy.gif
(B) Done thrice (identical spikes going back thousands of years):
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2cxbxw4.jpg
This ain’t rocket science. This is a spin doctor playing word games who himself works for one of the most outspoken Hockey Stick World debunkers of all time. Without a hockey stick, human attribution is not a valid *assumption*, scientifically, for without it simple chaos of the ocean dominated climate system perfectly explains yet another heating spike, just as simple chaos perfectly explains each typhoon. To ignore the fall of the hockey stick version of history from old versus new IPCC reports is pure smoke screen spin doctoring by a climate alarm profiteer.
The null hypothesis must be that fluctuations are due to non- human influences because there have been massive such fluctuations in pre-industrial times. The establish a cause and effect relationship between temperature and CO2, one of the key requirements is to identify all the factors which caused the pre-industrial fluctuations, quantify them and put them into the models. No climate scietntist is able to do that, so the CO2 idea remains an unproven hypothesis – at least amongst competent academics and scientists. The corollary is of course that those who persist in saying the science is settled do not meet normal standards of scientific competence. They certainly wouldn’t last long at my university department.
Here I show that tropical climate is very insensitive to change in radiative forcing and that volcanic forcing has been _reduced_ from earlier physically based assessments on the declared criterion that it better fits model output !
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
ie the volcanic forcing has been reduced in order to maintain the high sensitivity in the models.
Instead of mixing the climate models, they fix the input data.
If a scientist offers an explanation E for observations O, and his critics offer some reasons why E is a poor explanation or at the very least far from robustly confirmed, then the criticisms stand on their own merits, regardless of whether:
1. The critics have no alternative explanation for the observations.
2. The critics offer an alternative explanation for which is the evidence is even poorer.
In other words, “Oh, yeah? Well, how do you explain O, then, wise guy?” is not a defense of E. It’s a red herring.
“those who persist in saying the science is settled do not meet normal standards of scientific competence” -MAGB
This is an important point. But the case is even worse than just failing to meet those standards. Those who ridicule anyone who remains skeptical about a theory while that theory has not been robustly confirmed are anti-science. It is very important to science that its practitioners not be doxastically incontinent, that they subject explanations for observations rigorous examinations, and that they welcome criticism of their views. In fact, this is obvious. And from this obvious truth it obviously follows that science requires that its practitioners not ostracize, ridicule or otherwise subvert skeptics of theories which are not robustly confirmed.
The standards are very stringent. Suppose a critic of a theory not yet robustly confirmed goes to a conference talk, raises his hand, and offers a criticism which is very poor. Suppose further that that critic has no scientific accomplishments at all (he teaches science at a high school or he his a janitor). The duty of the scientist who supports the theory and has given the talk is to address the criticism and show why it is poor while simultaneously absolutely refraining from discouraging criticism of his theory.
“Storch: There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us….”
So, the idea that the warming effect of CO2 is smaller than previously believed is not a pleasant one? Any rational person would believe that, for people who believe we’re doomed by CO2, the idea of a smaller warming effect would very pleasant. In fact they should be celebrating it because we’re not quite so doomed after all.
But no. For the doom mongers, the idea of dangerous global warming caused by CO2 is a very useful tool in their fight against modern industrial society, the very thing that has vastly improved the well-being of mankind. For them the real global warming disaster would be a world with no global warming.
Chris
Volcanic forcing is only for land based volcanos. IPCC AR5 admits no knowledge of the ocean floor where volcanic vents could be driving the entire scenario. Can’t wait to see the data from the new CO2 satellite. So where is it?
In TS.6 IPCC admits continued low confidence in the magnitude of CO2 feedback. That is not a trivial admission.
Steven Mosher says:
July 26, 2014 at 4:33 pm
The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.
You misunderstand the scientific method. You don’t need to find an alternative to disprove a hypothesis just to show that at a given degree of confidence the hypothesis is rejected.
Therefore as the attribution case (in high sensitivity) lies largely with computer models (the hypothesis), only need show that these are wrong to disprove AGW as sated by the IPCC.
Mr. Mosher, I am sure you can read, but the IPCC statements clearly include a confidence level.
Refute the confidence, destroy the statement. It isn’t that hard.
Classic misdirection: You have to believe and do what I say unless you can prove that I am, beyond all doubt, wrong? You are the fool if you play the fool’s game. In addition, the hypothesis is unproven – a fact admitted in the IPCC statement that it is extremely likely. Otherwise, they would have stated it as fact, which they admit it isn’t.
I view the IPCC Like FIFA- Institutionally corrupt.
Don’t loose your time.
It’s a kind of childhood game where nobody can win.
Despite his “clarifications”, I guess that M. Keating would eventually begin to partially admit an argument _only_ if it’s an overwhelmingly unreachable and insane one: like if we are able to produce a graph with uncontested natural climate variability without CO2 and human-supposed-influence-removed for the last 200.000 years and next 10.000, at a tenth of a degree, and approved by M. Obama, by IPCC, by Al Gore, and by his own mother.
We cannot, of course, not because we are wrong, but because that’s not possible.
And we don”t have to, anyway.
M. Keating should start by demonstrate his own allegations before calling for a challenge to be disproved, in the first place.
So it’s a kind of game “my father is bigger than yours”
Don’t loose time.
I can just about, if I am very naive and very trusting of my elected representatives and prepared to believe that they are at all times acting for my long-term good, understand that government representatives might in extreme cases have some sort of an input into the SPM since they are the ones who have to take whatever action is deemed appropriate and this is easier to do if you can point to a document and say, “that’s my justification”.
But WTF are “non-governmental organisations” doing in there. I didn’t elect them. Their only rationale is to persuade politicians and political organisations to undermine the democratic system and the electorate to which those political entities are answerable. They are not scientific bodies; they command minimal public support; their understanding of the environment they profess to care for is infantile at best, self-serving mostly, and antui-human at worst.
And yet …
as Mosh would say….
The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that unicorns do not exist.
Bill Illis says:
July 26, 2014 at 6:15 pm
“It has to be shown that theory is not a correct representation of what really happens.”
Completely agree. CO2 “science” has already failed, as it did not correctly represent what really happened during the time of “global warming” and up to today. In spite of that, we’re supposed to bet the farm on this failed “science”.
The problem is who will do the judging. An AGW true believer is immune to facts that disagree with his or her preconceived position. No matter what facts you put forth that “claims of man-made climate change” are not supported by the science” – they will never be right or enough. It is good to generate discussion with people with open minds, but don’t waste time arguing with someone who will not change their mind no matter what facts are brought forth
Latitude says:
“The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that unicorns do not exist.”
! You got it
I claim that gravity does not exist but the planets are moving because they are pushed by flying angels who act as if gravity was existing. I promise to give 30K dollars if you disprove me. Of course I don’t need to give a clue of what are angels and why they would behave like gravity…
Latitude, you made me laugh.
I can think of three ways of proving the IPCC wrong:
1. No warming or cooling for another 5-10 years (requires honesty, integrity and competence from the custodians of the temp datasets)
2. A clearer understanding of natural oscillations in climate (requires freedom of non-activist scientists to carry out non-politicized science as well as unbiased reviewers and editors to publish their work)
3. A drop in atmospheric CO2 in spite of increasing CO2 emissions proving that, notwithstanding conventional thinking, CO2 is being outgassed from post LIA warming.
In other news
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/
Facts present themselves on a daily basis.
Fred Colbourne says:
July 26, 2014 at 10:51 pm
“Nevertheless, the theory will likely stand until the hiatus in global warming has endured until 2018 or global cooling is observed.
In my opinion, if the theory continues to be advanced beyond 2018 without clear confirmation by the observations, its proponents will have moved from science to pseudo-science.”
***
It probably won’t take that long, as solar activity will soon drop after this “peaking” is over, followed by a temperature drop, as happened during every cycle’s solar minimum. This time we’re going into the minimum after the lowest activity cycle since SC14 a hundred or so years ago. This solar cycle, SC24, has so far produced a daily observed average solar F10.7cm flux of 100sfu, compared to the next lowest out of the last six, SC20 during the 70’s cooling period, where this “radio” flux daily value was 113. SC19 was the most energetic where F10.7 flux was at 139/day, SC21 at 135, SC22 at 123, and SC23 was 122 sfu/day.
davidmhoffer says:
July 26, 2014 at 8:52 pm
I hereby offer $100 to anyone who can prove that Mosher is not an alien set among us by a hostile race for the express purpose of annoying skeptics into emotional rather than scientific responses and confusing the debate. I submit as evidence that Mr Mosher is:
o Frequently, and by his own admission, deliberately annoying.
o He often leaves cryptic comments that are likely a consequence of translation from an alien language
o His arguments frequently misrepresent the science, and when this is pointed out to him, he rarely responds to defend himself, showing that he doesn’t care what human beings think of him.
o He frequently talks down to people even when he is wrong, evidence that he believes himself to be a member of a superior race
Agreed, an alien set among us by a hostile race for the purpose of annoying skeptics would, by definition, be annoying.
Agreed, cryptic comments would be a characteristic of such an alien
While the fact that his arguments frequently misrepresent the science, so do the arguments of some climate scientist earthlings. Can’t agree that this is conclusive proof that he is an alien, but will agree that it doesn’t rule him out either. Call this one a wash.
Acting like one is a member of a superior race by talking down to people even when he is wrong also may or may not be a characteristic of an alien, but certainly would be if the aliens purpose was to annoy skeptics etc., so you get an agreement here too.
Your $100 is safe from me,
however…
Mosher may claim that since there is no proof that extra-terrestrial aliens exist, he can’t be one.
Then he will challenge you to prove that extra-terrestrial aliens do exist.
That one will be easy – hand him a mirror!
(he, he – Just playing along.)
Steven,
I don’t share in the general contempt commenters are showing for you and your words. It’s always good to hear criticism, particularly from a guy as sharp as you. But I think you’re mistaken here.
So the challenge is to show that the statement (to paraphrase) ‘it’s extremely likely that human use of fossil fuel has been the main cause of observed warming in the 20’th century’ isn’t supported by the science. The challenge is to show that this statement is not supported by the science. Alec’s argument appears to be addressing this. (1)
Whether or not this is a worthwhile thing to do, or if time wouldn’t be better spent looking at sensitivity is of course another question. If that’s your point, I don’t disagree.
Best regards.
(1) – disclaimer, I’m assuming Alec has represented the situation properly. I’m not sufficiently interested to go read Keating and verify.
@Mark Bofill
Keating has offered multiple ways but the primary one is asking people to prove a negative
“1. I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.”
I might as well offer a challenge that is equally ‘unprovable’. “I’ll give $100,000 of my own money to anyone who can prove, via the scientific method, that God did not create the universe.”
You can’t use the ‘scientific method’ to prove a non-scientific statement. There isn’t anything to test repeatedly. For instance, we can’t prove evolution via the scientific method, nor can we prove the Big Bang Theory via the scientific method.
Keating’s ‘clarification’ offers opinions (garnered via the expert ‘oracle’ method) and he wants people to disprove them via the scientifically, although I don’t really know what he means by ‘scientifically’, is it via the scientific method as stated previously or by some other means? Opinions cannot be proved nor disproved ‘scientifically’.
“Climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C and extremely unlikely (95-100%) less than 1°C.” Even if you prove beyond any doubt, ‘scientifically’ that Climate sensitivity is say exactly 1.25C that does not invalidate the statement because the statement dealt with probability.
“It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Define ‘dominant’. Is it 51% or the largest contributor?
dcowboy,
Well, ok, but
1) Are you talking about proving a negative?
2) Are you talking about applying the scientific method to opinions?
In the case of (1), I think we can reasonably prove some negatives. I mean, I understand the philosophical argument, but in practice for example, we can rule out that the increase in temperature has been due to 3 hiroshima bombs exploding in the atmosphere every second for a hundred years. They haven’t been observed and most sane people accept that as evidence that it hasn’t happened. So on.
In case of (2), I don’t agree at all. Hypothetical: In my opinion, a program probably crashed because of stack overflow. I can often scientifically verify or disprove my opinion in this case.
All I was really saying is that ‘is not supported by the science’ isn’t the same thing as ‘is false’. Alec claims the challenge is the first one, Steven the latter one. Steven asserted that this was so and didn’t really support it in my view, it was just an assertion.
You are never going to convince Totalitarians and their Perfect Totalitarian Fodder that they are not right. Same goes for The Mob.
the actual global warming of the earth system can not be assessed with the global temperature as it is defined ( or not defined!) you have to made assumptions for instance the exchange energy rate between ocean and atmosphere on the cloudiness and the radiative energy balance on aerosols …
if i tell you tomorrow it will rain ,with certainty of 95% the coming sunny day will not prove i am wrong.
The point is i made an assumption assuming that the wather nature is assessable in probalistic ways.
Assessing what did happened in probalistic ways is not wrong it is preposterous. It may not even be assessed with science!
if somebody tells you you are a woman with a probability of 50% it is preposterous it cannot be fasified even you are a man or a woman, one must say i may be wrong if i am telling you you re a woman with the probability of 50%..it is very very diffent, what actually happened cannot be assessed with a probabilty….
global warming was or was not man made…you cannot assess that , you can assess the probabilty to be wrong or right about it and it is very very different.
The climate of the Earth is in constant flux – it always has been (since it began) – it always will be (as long as it lasts). Human beings are part of nature as are ants and fungus. If we (speaking as a human) affect climate, then we take part in the natural change in climate.
If the change in global average temperature, disregarding precision , accuracy, and bias in temperature readings, exceeds the variation that existed before our short time here that would be a basis for stating that we (again speaking as a human) contribute to the natural variation.
In the long run, it doesn’t matter, as our passing from the scene, which will inevitably happen, will be a part of the natural scheme of things and, once we are gone, the Universe will cease to exist as it requires the presence of sentient observer in order to exist.
Disprove this,
Cheers
This “challenge” is the same as the cook consensus paper, it is not meant for a sceptic audience, it is designed for alarmist consumption. people spending more than a few minutes reading the crap from these ‘you must prove climate change doesnt exist’ people are just wasting their time. simple as that. they know they are not doing or backing science and will not care what you or anybody else thinks of that.
guys…..he’s not really asking anyone to prove a negative
He’s asking people to prove something does not exist….that hasn’t been proved to exist
“The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that unicorns do not exist.”
Steven Mosher says:
July 26, 2014 at 4:33 pm
The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.
===========
That’s no challenge, it’s called the null hypothesis – which is the real scientific position on the issue. The real challenge is using the scientific method to show that the warming is mostly due to humans.
Good luck with that.
So can we call this the; “Keating Argument”? As useful as that Kaya thingy?.
Prove the future can not be fuelled by Unicorn flatulence.
Just another clue that we are witnessing the collapse of a Cult.
From “The science is settled” to “All right thinking people know…”. the Cult of Calamitous Climate, has peaked and is in freefall.
As many others have stated, we need to focus on rooting out the idiotic policies imposed during this period of mass hysteria.
And firing the fools and bandits who imposed them.
Maybe Keating’s challenge can be counter-challenged.
I believe MAGB (at 2.45am) had it right when he said the null hypothesis is that fluctuations are due to non-human influences. That being the case why not double Keating’s offer (i.e.$60,000) if anyone can demonstrate, scientifically, that the dominant cause of warming in the last 50 years is not due to natural cycles.
The challenge can, and should be modified, including the time period, to make the challenge bulletproof. Perhaps those more knowledgeable of the science can do that.
Still, if Keating’s goal is to try and trap skeptics and claim a PR victory, a counter offer essentially negates his ploy. In all likelihood no one will ever pay out any money but, if necessary, we could probably crowdsource the $60,000. And, if it came down to it, perhaps a panel of volunteers could do the judging.
JohnH:
re your post at July 27, 2014 at 10:28 am.
If you go here you can see that someone called Will Pratt has attempted to challenge Keating to a debate with no success.
At the same URL you can find my response to Keating’s challenge (a click on ‘see more’ is required to read it all) and it is an exposition of the Null Hypothesis.
So, both your suggestions have been applied: one has been rejected while the response to the other is awaited. But this prevents warmunists from claiming that climate realists could not respond to Keating’s silly challenge.
Richard
Not to take anything away from Alec Rawls’ excellent response, but this boils down to the “blanket” argument.
Alarmist: An extra blanket on the bed at night will keep you warmer. It will cause you to sweat and perhaps die of heat stroke. Small infants may be smothered to death. Bed wetting will increase exponentially, as will infertility. Happiness index will sharply decline. People will gain weight, causing heart disease rates to soar. Dehydration will become a serious threat to life and well being. Suicide rates will rise as the extra blankets can be used to make rope. Our children will not know what a safe bed to sleep in looks like.
Skeptic: Uhm…. I don’t think you have any evidence to support that….
Alarmist; Oh yeah? I’ll give you $30,000 if you can prove that an extra blanket on the bed doesn’t keep you warmer at night!
Skeptic; Uhm… but it does…
Alarmist; Of course it does, that’s why you’ll never win the $30,000
Skeptic; (snipped)
Alarmist; The science is settled.
Skeptic; (snipped)
Alarmist; 97% agree
Skeptic; (snipped)
Alarmist; You should be in jail
Skeptic; (snipped)
Alarmist; That’s it, I just can’t can put up with anymore of your drivel, I don’t have time to snip your comments anymore, you are banned.
Their models are the finest representation of the most definitive evidence climate science has to offer. They have to be because that’s what they tell us.
In fact, not only do those models not predict anything – instead relying on the weasel cop-out of ‘projections’, but they also cover a widely disparate range of scenarios – all of them supposedly the possible consequences of man made warming.
Yet their models are – by any meaningful interpretation of fair analysis, wrong. Not one can reliably predict future climate.
Repeat that, not one can reliably predict future climate.
Therefore they’re not certain of anything. Instead, they’re guessing.
Chuck in a (widening) climate sensitivity range of several hundred % – 1.5 – 4.5C, which is so large it’s effectively an admission of failure, and the very best evidence they offer simply does not produce certainty to the 95%-99% levels claimed.
Plus for good measure everything we’re seeing in climate has been seen before so is within the range of natural observations, therefore not one single observation falsifies the null hypothesis, either.
Mr Keating, about that $30,000….
I am wondering if skeptics should not issue a major challenge to a debate. Get a team of skeptics (say 5) and they go up against a team of 5 alarmists. This done at a hall with an invited audience, and with a crew taping the whole affair. Put it on youtube after the event is over. It would be nice if a group of geologists, physicists and statisticians (or similar grouping) would host the thing and vote on who made the better case. I wonder if there are 5 alarmists in the world brave enough to debate the issues in public.
At least we have each other to talk to.
I agree with those who say that you cannot talk ot the AGW Alarmists.
These people have seriously accepted and adopted a cult-style thought structure.
Ask yourself: how do cults work?
First, they are friendly. They allude to vague benefits of being a member.
The benefit is either being privy to special knowledge, or being one of the special people.
It is is easy to profile the average human as far-from-perfect, and ignorant, that these claims are very believable.
The ideas are supported by the other true believers: surely [insert number] cannot be wrong.
As you advance to hear more of the special, unique ideas or thoughts or revelations, the rest of the world gets profiled more in a straw-man, a caricature.
Friends and family could disrupt this brain-washing process. So, as you advance into the cult, little by little, you are given things to believe about the unenlightened so that your developing thought structure is protected from outside criticism,
Media also gets caricaturized in order to innoculate the thought system from that influence.
As a life-long democrat, I have watched this thought structure creep up on us.
I jumped ship once I began exploring global warming fear. I voted for Obama in the first primary, but not in the election – I figured out he was one of these communist totalitarians – and I am too red-blooded american to fall for that.
The liberal cult comes out of Marxism. They have cleverly sifled up with democrats, labor, etc.
The appeal is this: it is a virtue cult. When you have the enlightened views, you are one of the virtuous minority. Far more moral than the unwashed masses.
While Marxism generally would scoff at the concept of “morals” as being a social construction developed to sustain the cultural hegemony, NEARLY ALL of these current liberal points of view have a MORAL basis.
It must be since this is the appeal – be moral/be virtuous.
This can be seen clearly with the nonsense at the border – it is insanity to encourage minors to trek across Mexico; yet it is now framed as virtuous, Reducing your carbon footprint is virtuous – and the opposite is to participate in evil – this is why the cult members cannot simply reduce their carbon footprint – they are evangelical .
Gun control – sure, we could reduce mass shootings by getting ALL guns off the street. <–This is in a category of political idea called "IMPOSSIBLE."
It is not virtuous to advocate for no-citizen-gun-possession; it is rank foolishness.
But many of my family and friends whole-heartedly believe this stuff.
Ten years ago, I heard NO ONE advocating for publically-funded birth control for all. Now, to be opposed is to be un-virtuous.
This just shows you: 1 it has been gradual; 2. people are believing things that realistically make no sense; 3. the cult concept explains a lot of this; 4. you simply cannot talk "reason" with a cult member – by time they throw out the $30,000 dare, they are all-in.
Thank God I had training as a journalist and scientist to anchor me in REALITY.
Here is the end-game: either totalitarianism, OR enough of these foolish things are seen to NOT pan out, such as is happening with global warming scare, and little by little people make that one break with the cult on the one issue, and that fragments the entire thought structure.
davidmhoffer, I think you nailed this with your July 26 2014, 11:42 am post. Might I add that the alarmist would believe in higher than observed positive feedbacks from that 1 blanket. The alarmist would say that one blanket would cause your body to heat up and produce sweat that instantly turns into water vapor further increasing the temps under your blanket (runaway greenhouse). The skeptic would claim that there is a negative feedback to your body temp and that the sweat (clouds) will cool your body down.
markstoval Your idea has been rejected by the warmists. They know they will be clobbered,
Ouch!
That will leave a mark…..
Jim Cripwell says:
July 27, 2014 at 6:03 pm
markstoval Your idea has been rejected by the warmists. They know they will be clobbered,
———————
History always vividly displays the cowards Jim!
If they had any confidence, the alarmists would be all over the opportunity, but they all flee like rats in the light at night.
Speaks volumes.
Confidence is not purchased, it is earned!
Just sayin…….
In accordance to the Scientific Method, it doesn’t matter what scientists hypothesize to be true, or what the public believes to be true, the ONLY thing that matters is how well the hypothetical projections match the reality they’re designed to describe/explain.
Under this criteria, the CAGW hypothesis is imploding:
1) No global warming trend for 18 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise
2) Falling global temp trends for 14 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000.8/plot/rss/from:2000.8/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.8/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.8/normalise
3) The discrepancies between CAGW’s hypothesized temp projections vs. reality have become a joke:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
4) The CAGW hypothesized increasing global trends of frequency/severity of: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, drought, flooding, tornadoes, tropical storms, thunderstorms, hail, etc. are NOT occurring as admitted in IPCC’s AR5 report released last year, which states NO increasing trends for all these weather events over the past 50~100 years.
5) The RATE of Sea Level Rise is NOT increasing as the CAGW hypothesis projected, and is stuck at around 7 inches per century and have actually fallen 30% over the past 10 years (Cazenave et al 2014 and Javrejeva et al 2014).
6) The Antarctic Sea Ice extent is growing as opposed to CAGW’s hypothesized projection that it should be shrinking, and just set a 35-yr record high anomaly this month:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
7) The Arctic Sea Ice Extent is showing signs of recovery as the 30-yr AMO warm cycle, which started in 1994, winds down:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
8) The Arctic is having its 2nd coldest summer since DMI records began in 1958 (2013 was THE coldest summer….) Oh, my:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
9) Only 0.4 watts/M^2 of added energy has entered the oceans to warm the top 2000 meters +0.09C since 1955, which is 1/3rd the amount the CAGW hypothesis projected.
10) On the CO2 forcing side of the CAGW hypothesis, the math can be easily disproved. The forcing effect of doubling CO2 is 5.35 x ln(560ppm/280ppm)=3.7 watts/M^2, and calculating the GROSS Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) using a rather long equation involving the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, equates to about 1.2C of Gross potential global warming from the added 3.7 watts/M^2 of CO2 forcing.
From this 1.2C of GROSS potential ECS, the CAGW hypothesis projects 3.0C~4.5C of CO2 induced Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity by adding a “runaway positive feedback loop” involving an exponential increase of atmospheric water vapor caused by the added 3.7 watts/M^2 of CO2 induced forcing. To keep the sum of the TOTAL positive feedback loop below 1.0 the positive feedback loop is offset by arbitrarily increasing fossil fuel particulates….. (if the sum of the feedbacks exceeds 1.0, then global temps would increase to infinity; which would not be a really bad hair day for Earth…)
Unfortunately for the CAGW hypothesis, atmospheric water vapor is NOT increasing exponentially as the empirical evidence clearly shows:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
http://nvap.stcnet.com
11) The CAGW hypothesis projects that added atmospheric CO2 emissions will cause dangerous ocean acidification. This is rubbish. Since 1750, ocean pH has only dropped from ph 8.15~8.2 to just 8.1, which is just a -0.05~ -0.1 pH difference, after burning through roughly 50% of known fossil fuel reserves.
Since the average ocean pH over the past 250 million years has been around pH 7.8, and oceans thrived at this less alkaline pH level. The empirical evidence shows there is absolutely no reason for concern. If anything, ocean pH is still too alkaline as it is the most alkaline it has ever been in Earth’s 4.5 billion years…
12) The CAGW hypothesizes that crop yields, forest growth and plant life will suffer from higher CO2 levels. This is patently false. Increasing CO2 levels to 560ppm will: increase crop yields and forest growth by 40% due to CO2 fertilization (Idso and Idso et al), will decrease plants’ water requirements from shrinking leaf stoma caused by higher CO2 levels, will increase the amount of arable land area in northern latitudes due to the 0.5C of CO2 induced ECS, will lengthen growing seasons for the 0.5C of CO2 induced ECS, will make winters less severe from 0.5C of CO2 induced ECS, and will increase ocean plankton growth from CO2 fertilization, which is beneficial for all ocean life.
Conclusion: Any one of these realities is sufficient to cast doubt on the efficacy of the CAGW hypothesis, and all 12 of these facts are downright damning to the CAGW hypothesis. None of CAGW’s dire predictions are occurring and any changes to the climate and/or the environment from higher CO2 levels are either benign or positive and any possible negative effects (thermal expansion of oceans) are easily offset by all the positive effects enjoyed from higher CO2 levels.
Keating owes me $30,000….. I won’t accept a check, only a wire transfer is acceptable…..
Although I agree with much that you say, I do quibble a bit with this:
“Somehow it doesn’t dawn on him that if ill-understood forces of natural temperature change can be at least as strong as the hypothesized human effects in the cooling direction then they could also be responsible for the two decades of warming that the IPCC is attributing to human effects, and there goes your certainty.”
The problem with this statement is that we have had a pause in warming—we have not (yet) had the cooling. But you are correct that there are two sides here. If the warmists want to excuse the pause using the oceans, then they must also attribute a portion of the warming to same.
(Which is still a problem for them.)
Jim Cripwell says: July 26, 2014 at 6:40 pm
You are fond of making this claim, but equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and its more policy-relevant cousin, transient climate response (TCR), has been measured numerous times. Unfortunately, many estimates of ECS and TCR are based on assuming ONLY the IPCC approved forcings. But the IPCC forcings (greenhouse gas (GHG), aerosols, TSI) can not explain the large temperature variations of the Roman Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, because the IPCC does not include most natural causes of climate change, and their forcings are unknown. Therefore, any estimate of ESC or TCR that requires an estimate of total forcings must be wrong.
Fortunately, we can estimate TCR by comparing changes in GHG forcings to changes in the greenhouse effect (GHE), which is the temperature difference between the surface and the top-of-atmosphere effective radiating temperature. Both the GHG forcing and the GHE are known and measurable. Natural causes of climate change and human caused changes in aerosol and land use do not directly change the greenhouse effect, other than by a feedback response to water vapor. The CERES dataset accurately measures the effective radiating temperature (via OLR), and there was no temperature change over the data period, so there was no average feedback over the period starting in 2000. With zero net feedbacks, the GHE change is ONLY caused by the GHG forcing, allowing a determination of TCR. The result is: Using HadCRUT3 surface temperatures, TCR = 0.38 °C [0.0 to 0.92 °C] and using HadCRUT4, TCR = 0.74 °C [0.20 to 1.29 °C]; where the range is the 95% confidence interval with zero minimum. These values are much less than the multi-model mean estimate of 1.8 °C for TCR given in Table 9.5 of the AR5.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=739
Is this sufficient to claim the Keating prize?
If you want to disprove the assertion that scientists are of the opinion that humans caused >50 of the 20th century warming you would surely need the scientific evidence on which they based the assertion. Without that evidence there is nothing to challenge. I agree with Mosh that it’s going to be difficult to prove it wasn’t humans who caused the rise in temperature because there is no scientific basis for saying they did. I don’t agree with him that they did, that’s simply an opinion and when it comes to opinions without scientific evidence each has equal value.
geronimo:
Your post at July 28, 2014 at 12:25 am says in total
Actually, your post makes a point which is a valid way to claim Keating’s prize.
Keating’s challenge is
Your response could be
There is no scientific basis for saying man-made global climate change is occurring because there is no empirical evidence that it is. Therefore, claims that man-made global climate change is
or is not occurring are merely unsupported opinions. The scientific method rejects unsupported opinions and, therefore, the default position according to the scientific method has to be that unless evidence to the contrary is obtained then man-made global climate change is
not occurring. This is because something only exists as a subject for scientific study when there is evidence for its existence: and if it does not exist as a subject for scientific study then it has no existence scientifically.
So, according to the scientific method, man-made global climate change is not occurring because man-made global climate change does not exist as a scientific reality.
Keatings “challenge” is NOT science. It is a political ploy. And failure to respond to it would offer him the political ‘win’ on a plate.
It is important to note that Keating is likely to claim a ‘win’ whatever happens because he is the sole arbiter of responses to his “challenge”. But his refuting reasoned replies can be ridiculed, while no replies would offer him – and other warmunists – the opportunity to proclaim that climate realists ‘cannot dispute the science’.
Richard
Keating and his minded people, if you have enough money, I offer solution and proof that climate change on our planet and on other planets, in general does not depend on the human factor. My proof is much more expensive than Keating’s offer because it is worth at least 4000 times more than its supply, plus evidence that the participating governments of America as financier and NASA as an organization that has all the technical and technological possibilities to carry it out. This is no auditorium or deception, because I have evidence of the true causes of climate change, which is not at all naive, but these are the consequences of natural law that Current science is not recognized. Who wants this solution fails, let’s come to discuss.
Ken Gregory points out the difference between Phil Jones’ old and new Climategate University temperature product now that Phil’s latest update to HadCRUT4 is attributed to his new Saudi Arabian university appointment, so that in 2012 climate sensitivity as measured doubled:
“The result is: Using HadCRUT3 surface temperatures, TCR = 0.38 °C [0.0 to 0.92 °C] and using HadCRUT4, TCR = 0.74 °C [0.20 to 1.29 °C]”
http://mpc.kau.edu.sa/Pages-Prof-Philip-Jones.aspx
CLIMATEGATE 101: “For your eyes only…Don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.” – Phil Jones to Michael Mann
Whether you will win your $30k has nothing to do with science but all to do with contract law. IMHO Keating is only obliged to pay out if he and you have entered into a contract. Contracts involving a single entity and the public have been around for many years.
Typically, you can enter into such a contract by purchasing a product which states that you may win a prize if you succeed in achieving such and such outcome. Such contracts are called “competitions.” By advertising the competition and spelling out the ground rules in the terms and conditions, the competitor has entered into a contract with the vendor. But note, a consideration has taken place in the first instance.
The question is whether such a contract can exist without a consideration. It is my understanding of contract law that there can’t be a contract without consideration. So, for example, if Pepsi were to offer a prize for something but you didn’t need to purchase a product, and they refused to give the prize, I don’t think there would be any legal redress.
So Keating’s offer of a “prize” isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. He must know that since there is no legal redress to make him pay out, he can use whatever weasel words he wants to refuse payment. Therefore it isn’t a genuine offer at all but a cheap pr stunt.
If anyone feels they can muster the argument, then you must get him to enter a contract. Pay a fee to enter, get the contract drawn up and away you go. My guess is he’ll back down.
Vince Causey:
I am grateful for your legal explanation at July 28, 2014 at 7:38 am and I write to ask for a clarification.
Before asking, I want to make it clear that I don’t think there is a snowball’s chance in H*ll that anybody will win because Keating is the sole arbiter of whether anyone has won.
Despite that, I make my genuine request.
You say
I submitted my reply to his challenge saying in writing and in public
and Keating replied in writing and in public saying here
Hence, I would be grateful if you were to answer my question which is:
Does Keating’s reply constitute a contract?
Richard
Richard:
I submitted my reply to his challenge saying in writing and in public
That being the only valid scientific conclusion concerning AGW which accords to the scientific method is sufficient for you to pay the $30,000 to the charity of my choice.
and Keating replied in writing and in public saying here
I have your submission and will respond as quickly as I can. It is called “$30,000 Challenge Submission – Null Hypothesis” and you can follow my progress here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarmin…
Hence, I would be grateful if you were to answer my question which is:
Does Keating’s reply constitute a contract?
That could get amusing – I would be very interested in seeing the result should someone submit a reasonable proof and follow up with a breach of contract suit when he doesn’t pay!
Hi Richardscourtney,
I should point out that I’m not a lawyer and it is my 2 cents worth that I didn’t think he is risking anything because no contract exists. Your correspondence with Keating is interesting but in my lay opinion, I don’t think it constitutes a contract because no consideration has been paid by yourself, either immediately or promised at some future time.
I do think it’s an important angle to look at because it exposes whether or not Keating is risking $30k. I was hoping that some readers with legal background, might add some more to this idea, and I would hazard a guess that Keating will back down if he felt his money was legally at risk, and therefore lose the pr battle.
Thanks
Vince
It seems Keating is censoring my comments
at least the one’s that refer to my final report on climate change, i.e.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-henrys-pool.html
TonyG and Vince Causey:
Sincere thanks to each of you for your posts at July 28, 2014 at 9:19 am and July 28, 2014 at 9:40 am, respectively. I intend no disrespect to this single response which I provide for clarity because you were each replying to my question.
I genuinely consider that my submission to Keating is “a reasonable proof” according to the criteria established by Keating. However, what I consider – or anybody else considers – is not relevant because Keating has defined that only his opinion matters in assessing if a submission is “a reasonable proof”.
I apologise to Vince if my question provided embarrassment: that was not my intention. I am not an American and I am not a lawyer. Vince seemed to know something about pertinent American law and that was why I posed my question.
As I see it, this affair requires PR damage limitation. And that attempt at limitation is the real purpose of my submission because I don’t think Keating will pay under ant circumstances. If it were true that Keating had entered a contract with me then there would be ‘mileage’ to be made from his failure to agree my submission warrants his paying the $30,000.
Richard
Where is part 3?
When Mr. Rawls called this “Taking Keating Seriously”, I though he was. I was certainly mistaken. That was a childish submission, even for a contrarian. It would have been nice if he had included a little science in something that was suppose to use the scientific method. I responded to his submission ad you can read it here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/08/30000-challenge-submission-taking.html
cfkeating says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:25 pm
“The first thing Mr. Rawls did was to go into how the rise in temperature has stopped. This is such a false argument that I am constantly surprised when anyone makes this claim. Any discussion of global warming means we are discussing the globe. The surface of the globe is not the globe and talking about the average surface temperature ignores 93% of the warming that is taking place – the oceans.”
After wading through your condescending comments about Mr. Rawls i came upon your first statement to validate your hypothesis and this is what you posted. Mr. Keating….we are discussing air temperature . If ” 93% of the warming that is taking place – the oceans” has affected air temperature then it has been a negative affect. What is your point?
cfkeating says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Ah, OK.
So, across the long many decades before man-released CO2 became important, the sea rose because it was getting warmer, but Keating can’t say why it became warmer at the same rate as it did between 1900 and 1935, and between 1980 and 1995, but did not change rates when air temperature increases stopped increasing. Yet all the while CO2 was steadily increasing from very low levels to today’s modest levels. Odd that.
Nor can he find a reason why the global air temperatures DID fall between 1940 and 1975, but why sea levels continued to rise at the same rate as they did before or after air temperatures rose during those periods, nor why air temperatures were steady between 1996 and 2014, or why they were steady at any previous times in history.
Nor can he explain why – if sea levels reflect deep ocean temperature increases, why those temperature increases are not measured with today’s few deep ocean instruments.
So, apparently there is no connection between global average CO2 levels, global average air temperatures nor global average air temperature anomalies, nor global deep sea temperatures nor deep ocean volume increases …….