About that $30,000 to 'disprove global warming' contest

Guest essay by Steven Burnett

Most of my income is derived from tutoring, with part being tied into the Google helpouts system. One of my most loyal customers for my physics and mathematics tutoring sent me a link to a $10,000 reward challenge for skeptics. Which is now up to $30,000, seen here.

Below is what I wrote back with minor edits. While I could have added more links, or graphs, I feel that this synopsis is the most compact skeptic’s case, without dropping off too many details. Perhaps I should submit it for $30,000.

These kinds of challenges pop up all the time here’s one for creationism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/joseph-mastropaolo-creationist-10000-disprove-genesis_n_2964801.html

The problem with the climate change challenge is that no one is denying that there is likely an anthropogenic signal. The question is how much.

This article probably offers one of the better overviews of the issue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/20/global-warming-of-the-earths-surface-has-decelerated-viewpoint/

You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off. The data shows that the northern hemisphere has had a shift in the mean temperature since before the industrial revolution.

Overwhelmingly the people pushing the issue like to try to box skeptics in by presenting it as an all or nothing issue, which those who don’t read skeptic statements take on faith. In reality the skeptic’s side has a much larger range of stances on the issues, I have tried to bold them out. There are some people who make ridiculously stupid claims that there is no anthropogenic signal but it’s a very small minority. Many skeptics feel that they are just internet trolls, we try not to feed them.

A better way to examine skeptics is to look at them as scientific critics, and more specifically to evaluate the criticisms as issues with each step of the scientific method in climate science fields. The standard scientific method goes:

Observations->Hypothesis->Experiment->Analysis. If we were to go back to the ’90’s Then we could state that this was doled out as…

Observations: A warming/CO2 concentration correlation and CO2 absorbs IR spectra, the same trend in the ice core data existed,

Hypothesis: Emissions cause global warming,

Experiment: Climate Model,

Analysis: a close approximation of the hind cast, statistically significant temperature increases, hockey sticks, etc. Through the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the conclusion that global warming is real was scientifically acceptable. The next stage is usually peer review and scrutiny and this is where the theory ran into problems.

The Problems:

The observations aren’t very good prior to the late ’70’s and they get worse as we go back to the earliest records. We weren’t looking for tenths of a degree trends and we weren’t controlling our instruments for them. Stations have been moved, cities have grown etc, all of which would induce a warming bias on those stations, the data is frankly of poor quality. But there are other problems that came up. The ice core data, using better instrumentation, actually shows CO2 lagging behind temperature changes. More importantly temperatures stopped rising on all data sets, but CO2 levels continued their upward expansion. We also have not detected the “hot spot” that was sure to be proof of an anthropogenic contribution.

Our Hypothesis for how the climate system operates is essentially coded into the climate models. There are 114 of them that are used by the IPCC all of them are going up, all of them are rising faster than observations and most of them have been falsified. But the work falsifying them is very recent.

This paper falsifies the last 20 years of simulations at the 90% confidence interval, within that blog entry you can find another paper that falsifies them at the 98% confidence interval. That paper cites a third that falsified at the 95% confidence interval.  What this means is that there is less than a 10%, 2% or 5% chance that the models are wrong by chance.

As the models are mathematical representations of how we think the climate system operates, that means climate scientists were wrong.  In response there has been a flurry of activity attempting to attribute the pause and explain it, but explaining a problem with mathematical models after it occurred and claiming that your hypothesis will still be born out requires its own period of time to validate.

There are well over 10 different attributions at this point for the pause, most of them entirely explaining it away. This means the pause in its current state is over explained and more than one of those papers is wrong. In science we aim for a chance at being wrong of 5%, apparently climate science gets a pass.

This divergence also has impacted the metric known as climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivities note a thermal increase of 1.2-1.5 C per doubling of CO2, as in if we went form the current 400ppm CO2 to 800PPM CO2 the temperatures would rise approximately 1.2-1.5 degrees, climate simulations produce much higher results typically between 3 and 4.5 degrees per doubling.

clip_image002

Digging even further there are major issues with the models, our experiments, themselves. Depending on the compiler, operating system and even hardware modeling output can change due to rounding errors. They can’t predict clouds. Nor do they have the resolution to see many of the atmospheric processes that transport heat. But that’s only the climate models themselves.  The impact models, or integrated assessment models have almost no data upon which to base their claims. That’s why the IPCC stated that the costs of climate change for 2.5 degrees of warming range from .2%-2% of world GDP. This is again for predictions almost 100 years in the future, which at this time are untestable and unfalsifiable.

When evaluating the cost of a ton of CO2 emissions the integrated assessment models depend very heavily on the discount rate. The current administration cites a discount rate of 3% at 37$ per ton but the most appropriate discount rate, and the one which long term assessments are supposed to be performed at is 7%. This means the actual social cost of carbon is about 4-5$ per ton. As was discussed in an EPW senate hearing, the current administration has failed to produce the 7% discount rate as is required and instead produced 5%, 3% and 2.5% rates. The reason the cost varies so much is partially due to uncertainty in the integrated assessment models which are fed the outputs of the GCM’s. A common coding colloquialism is GIGO garbage in garbage out.

But the worst issue is the analysis. As part of the attempts to preserve the theory there have been some gross statistical practices and data torture employed.  The first monstrosity to be slain was Michael Mann’s hockey stick which used a special algorithm to weight his tree samples. That was taken down by Steven McIntyre a statistician who proved not only the weighting issue, but also found the splice point of thermometer data when the proxy and thermometer temperatures diverged.

There have since been several other hockey-sticks, all of which go down as giant flaming piles of poo. Trenberth’s hockey stick, also from dendrochronology, died when it was pointed out that he was using a special sub-selection of only 12 trees, and that when his entire data set was used the hockey-stick disappeared. In 2013 Marcott et al published a hockey-stick on his graph that averaged multiple proxies except the the blade portion was generated using only about 3 of the proxies, that weren’t statistically robust, had some proxy date rearrangement issues, which coincided with the industrial revolution.

You have mentioned the 97% consensus papers which do exist but they are atrocious. Cook et al. has been rebutted several times actually I recommend further reading some of the issues that Brandon Schollenberger has pointed out as well, though it’s not peer reviewed. The earlier 97% paper by Doran and Zimmerman was equally stupid the wallstreet journal touched on both but I recommend this site for a thorough critique. Truthfully the number of abstracts and methodologies I have read that are complete garbage from this field is astounding so I’m not going to try to link them all.

The question ultimately becomes what piece of evidence is required before admitting that climate may not be as sensitive to anthropogenic emissions as once thought?

Outside of the problems with their scientific methodology there’s also some ethics issues that seem to keep cropping up. A statistician working for a left leaning think tank was just terminated because he wrote a piece about the statistically weak case for anthropogenic warming. About a month before that Lennart Bengtsson, a climate scientist tried to join a more conservative and skeptical climate change think tan. He had to resign due to threats, authors withdrawing from his papers and general concern for his safety and wellbeing.

A paper of his, focused on the discrepancy between models and observations, was rejected with the rejecting review stating they recommended it in part because they felt it might be harmful. The reviewer also mentioned that climate models should not be validated against observational data. A few years ago it was climate-gate.

A psychology paper tried to name skeptics as conspiracy nuts, when it was retracted citing ethical reasons, the researchers and their community cited it as being perfectly ok to debase your opponents and that the retraction was due to lawsuits. The clamoring defense got so antagonistic the publisher had to reinforce the rejection was due to the papers ethics violations, language and the failure or unwillingness of the authors to make changes. There’s also the paper that says lying and exaggerating results is OK.

If you read skeptical science they try to rebut skeptic claims but nine times out of ten they use strawmen, ad hominems or other logical fallacies. For instance a good argument can be made that cheap affordable fossil fuel energy can greatly improve the poorest nations of the world, and that denying them access to this resource is harmful. They rebut it by pointing out that projected climate damages, impact the poorest nations the most. That might be true but it’s not the same argument. Depriving impoverished nations of the energy they need to grow, enforcing poverty and mandating foreign dependence for 85 years, so that the poor might not have to suffer from as many storms in the future is frankly asinine.

But let’s say you’re not skeptical of the ethics, or their methodological flaws. Let’s say you decide you want avert the future risk now. You can still be skeptical of the proposed solutions. For instance let’s look at energy policy. The cheapest, most effective and simplest energy policy would be a carbon tax. Again 4$ per ton accurately prices future damages. It also allows countries and markets to work instead of hoping bureaucrats don’t screw it up. Essentially a carbon tax penalizes carbon for its actual cost instead of giving enormous power to unelected officials like what the EPA just did.

But maybe you don’t believe in markets, maybe you believe the government isn’t as incompetent as they seem to keep trying to prove. That’s fine, you can still be skeptical of how the money is being spent. In the US solar receives an unbelievable amount of market favoritism, you start by getting a 40% tax credit on every installation. Additionally while all sectors recoup their capital investments over time as the assets depreciate, solar recoups 100% of its cost in under 5 years, that’s less time than an office chair. With these perks solar is still the most expensive form of electricity generation.

When you correct for just the tax credit solar costs increase to almost 140$/mwhr for standard installations, that goes up for thermal solar. Correcting for wind’s tax credit this goes up to about 88$ MwHr. The intermittancy on the grid is an externality that should be accounted for, from there you have to factor in the degradation of wind and solar as a cost factor, which when integrated over their life span multiplies their cost by almost 4.5.

Nuclear at an approximate 96$/MWhr is substantially cheaper, has a lower life cycle carbon emission, lasts longer and is safer. But we only hear about improving renewable contributions when they are literally worse in every way.

These are issues that we can have with the scientific authenticity of the theory. The next step would be falsification, but It’s difficult to find a piece of falsifying evidence. No matter what happens now or in the future global warming/climate change seems to predict it. We have both warmer and cooler spring/summer/fall/winter. There’s droughts and floods, cold/hot. Literally in 2009/2010 we were hearing how climate change will totally cause more snow in winter when just a few years before it was the end of snowy winters. Hell that was four years ago and they were still blaming crappy Olympic conditions on global warming this year, ignoring entirely that the average temperature for that part of Russia in February is above freezing throughout the whole damn record.

We have almost 2 decades of no temperature trend, and a net negative for a little over a decade. That’s apparently not enough. There are periods within this interglacial that have been warmer, and periods that have been cooler. So what is the reference period of a climatic normal? A few hundred years ago temperature spiked without greenhouse gas emissions, the period of 1914-1940 showed a similar rate and trend as the 1980-200 period, why is the latter anthropogenic and the former not? How is CO2 the driving force this time when there is scant to no evidence that it has ever been the major force in the past?

Why should we believe the corrections or explanations for the pause, the same individuals hyping them were the same ones pointing out how perfect the models were just a few years ago? there is no mechanism by which heat remitted in the lower atmosphere magically descends to the deepest layer of the ocean. the one we just started to measure a few years ago and from which there still aren’t reliable measurements, also the region that is bounded by warmer upper oceans and geothermal heating. How does it get there without being detectable in the upper atmosphere, lower atmosphere or upper oceanic level? Nor is there a mechanism to describe how it could possibly all concentrate in the arctic where we also don’t have any measurements.

Where do we draw the scientific line between natural or artificial trends, and how do we know that line is accurate? Why shouldn’t climate science be required to validate? What is falsifying evidence? Faced with the mountain of problems surrounding uncertainty, poor methodology, awful ethics and analysis, most skeptics, myself included just call the whole thing bullshit.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
cnxtim

Excellent rebuttal of CAGW theory – thanks.

Rolf

I am pretty sure the most part of the warming we seen so far in the records really is made by man. I also think it’s proven many times at this blog. Just look yesterday at how the record have been tampered with. The trend made from decline to …. Sure it’s man made and proven how to deny that … and most important how to prove it’s wrong

ossqss

Nice write up. Thanks, it was worth the time.
Models are making policy folks.
When one looks at any given energy or environmental policy at any level, it is driven by a climate model somewhere in it’s past or present.
When one looks at how most models are currently constructed, that have already influenced past policy, one should shudder. It is like painting rotted wood.
We certainly should have the technology to decypher from the environment what we want.
Don’t forget about the CO2 monitoring Satellite that was successfully launched recently.
How will we manage that data? Never had it before, did we?
Amazing what we can learn with eyes from space, eh?

Paul Evans

My submission (Climate Change Reconsidered by NIPCC) was rebutted with an article from Greenpeace and another from DeSmog!!!

If alarmists are serious about putting money on the line, let’s do it like this, Simon v. Ehrlich style:
Over the 21st century, the IPCC projects about 4mm of sea level rise per year if draconian cuts in fossil fuels are made, and about 7mm/year under a business-as-usual scenario. The IPCC also projects a global surface temperature anomaly increase of about 3C per CO2 doubling.
I want there to be a way to bet real money against an alarmist that the actual rises will be less than half of the predicted rises in sea level and temperature, payable in 2025, based on the trailing 10 year averages. The wagers can be held in an escrow account. I wish Intrade had not been shut down.

Latitude

I’m sorry, but this say it all….comment image

This is an anti-sucker bet. The manner in which it is phrased makes it impossible to win it. He may as well have asked for proof that taking a leak in the ocean doesn’t raise the sea level. Of course it does. The question is by how much and is that enough to have a significant impact.
This is a favourite tactic of the warmists. To phrase the question in a manner which completely side steps the actual issue, and then declare victory. It is terribly sad for anyone with a working knowledge of the physics at hand to witness scientists such as this one twisting and contorting the question so that it no longer represents the debate itself. It is sad, but strong, evidence that they cannot debate the actual issues, they know they can’t, so they re-frame to create a meaningless playing field upon which to claim victory.
I’m going to wander down to the ocean now and take a leak. It won’t raise the seal level by enough to matter, and I challenge this “advocate dressed up as a scientist” to prove otherwise.

From “the challenge”:
“Outraged by the unsavory tactics of climate change deniers, physicist Christopher Keating says he’ll give $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to prove that human-instigated climate change isn’t real.”
Point #1 – They (including Keating) haven’t shown proof, using the scientific method, that “climate change” is being “instigated” by humans. We don’t even have proof that it is being measurably contributed to by human activity. As Steven Burnett points out, we humans are probably contributing to some degree of a warming atmosphere, but the exact amount is highly debatable.
Point #2 – “Climate Change”? Really? C’mon, let’s not keep falling for that. If human CO2 emissions are contributing to any sort of change in the climate, it would be minor warming. When it is either not warming, or cooling, it can not be the fault of those CO2 emissions, can it? But, “Climate Change”! Geez, the climate is always changing somewhere.
Point #3 – The concept is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. As the Oregon Petition says,
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
That is the ball upon which we must keep an eye.

The author of this piece should add a section on the benefits of CO2 in its form as plant food.

Latitude

every 2013 raw….is below every 1938 raw
you only get global warming by algorithm and adjustments
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/temperature-adjustments-in-ohio/

Oops, I have a comment stuck in moderation, ’cause I used the “d word” in a quote from “the challenge”.

“Latitude says: July 6, 2014 at 5:35 pm
I’m sorry, but this say it all….comment image
– – –
That graph is missing about 419 units of F that should be added to the bottom. Why does it stop at -40 ?

glenncz

It accepted by both sides that atmosphere rose from 300ppm in about 1900 to about 400ppm now. That 100/1,000,000 of a change in the atmosphere, or 1 in 10,000 parts of the atmosphere changed from something to CO2. We are led to believe, or shall i say – force fed, that 1/10,000 part is what drives higher temperature and every weather event you can think of, even tsunami’s.
And that extra evil 10,000th part has to be from man. Yet the IPCC’s own literature states that fossil fuel combustion is only about 3% of the total of earths CO2’s emission.
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/Carbon_Cycle-ipcc.png
(that Carbon Cycle image is nothing but a wild rough guess by the IPCC,)
When you just put that 10,000th part next to 3% something doesn’t seem to be right. Or you can believe that planet Earth is in a very, very delicate balance indeed.

Steven Burnett

“The author of this piece should add a section on the benefits of CO2 in its form as plant food.”
The reason I didn’t is because that would represent a red herring. The point of a scientific critique is to demonstrate the failure of the offered theory. Pointing out benefits means nothing if we arent countering the claims. This is the same problem with the SKS kids countering statements on the harm of restricted carbon fuel use by saying climate change will get worse. It’s not per se an incorrect statement, its just irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The problem with their challenge is that they never define their terms. “Man Made Global Warming” can be whatever they damn well want it to be and thus it is like Steve MacIntyre’s whack a mole.

Konrad

Yes, about that $30,000 challenge…
After numerous difficulties posting at his site, I did manage to get an entry published and screen shots taken. Some may think this is a waste of time as Christopher has stated he will be the sole judge. Actually, this being the Internet, the world will be the judge 😉
I will place the entire entry below as an example of the simplest empirical proof that there is no net radiative GHE on our ocean planet. If there is no net radiative GHE, there can be no AGW from CO2 emissions.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
AGW empirically disproved for $30,000 USD
Christopher,
disproving AGW is simple, and the disproof can be empirically demonstrated. AGW depends on the unproven hypothesis of a net radiative “greenhouse effect” raising the surface temperature of our planet 33C above its theoretical blackbody temperature of -18C. But there is no net radiative GHE on our ocean planet.
Does this mean there is an error in current radiative physics? No. The two layer radiative model that is the foundation of global warming claims works. You can even build an empirical model –
http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
– The target plate in chamber 1 reaches the higher equilibrium temperature. But this has no relationship to the reality of our planet. Standard S-B equations work for matt black plates separated by vacuum. They don’t work when coupling between “layers” is occurring via non-radiative transports. They don’t work on moving gases. They certainly don’t work on semi transparent surfaces and they don’t work on materials cooled by evaporation.
And it is the last two points that are the killer for not just AGW but the very idea of a net radiative GHE on our planet.
All of the AGW hoax can be disproved by just correctly answering one very, very simple question –
“given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”
The radiative GHE hypothesis stands or falls on this question as 71% of the planets surface is covered in ocean. If the net effect of the atmosphere over the ocean is cooling, AGW and the radiative GHE hypothesis are both disproved. Why? Because if the net effect of the atmosphere over 71% of the planets surface is cooling, the atmosphere in turn needs a cooling mechanism. The only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is radiative gases. If, given 1 bar pressure, the atmosphere is cooling the oceans, then AGW, as you requested, is disproved.
So is our atmosphere warming or cooling our oceans? The AGW hypothesis states that DWLWIR slows the cooling rate of the oceans allowing the average 240 w/m2 received to heat them above -18C to 15C.
Can DWLWIR slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? The answer is no. Not to any measurable degree. This can be shown by the simplest empirical experiments –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
I have been running multiple versions of this experiment since 2011 –
http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg
Just fill the sample containers with 40C water under the strong and weak LWIR sources. You will note no divergence in their cooling rate. Repeat, but this time float a square of LDPE film onto the surface of each sample. Now, when evaporative cooling is prevented, the sample cooling rates diverge. Incident LWIR, even if emitted from a cooler material, can slow the cooling rate of most materials. It just doesn’t work for liquid water that can evaporatively cool.
But if DWLWIR is not keeping our oceans above -18C what could be doing it? The oceans are a “near blackbody” aren’t they? An average 240 w/m2 of incident solar radiation should only result in a temperature of 255K (-18C). Well the simple answer is that the oceans are not a near blackbody, they are what is known to engineers (but not climastrologists) as a “selective surface”.
So what is the difference between a “near blackbody” and a “selective surface”, and why does it matter? Here we will cover empirical experiments dealing with semi-transparent selective surfaces.
Are you seated comfortably Christopher? Then let’s begin. Let’s begin …in 1965.
In 1965, researchers at Texas A&M were experimenting with solar storage ponds. While “salt gradient” won the day, some initial research was into freshwater evaporation constrained ponds –
http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg
– They found an interesting thing. Despite making layer 2 matt black and absorbing more SW and UV, the pond didn’t heat as well. Layer 2 clear and layer 3 black worked far better. If layer 2 was black, they found temperatures just millimetres below could be 30C lower than surface. If there was no DWLWIR on such a solar pond with layer 2 matt black, then average surface temperature would indeed be -18C. But layer 2 clear and layer 3 black is a game changer. Without atmospheric cooling, regardless of DWLWIR, surface Tmax would top 80C.
Let’s examine SW selective surfaces a little further –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
Here is the experiment being run under intermittent SW simulating diurnal cycle –
http://i61.tinypic.com/2z562y1.jpg
The experiment is simple. Expose both blocks to equal SW radiation. Say about 1000 w/m2 for three hours. Block A now has a higher average temperature by about 20C. Try again with 1000 w/m2 of IR. No average temperature difference. Both blocks have the same ability to emit LWIR, the same ability to absorb both SW and IR. The only difference is the depth of SW absorption. And for materials with slow internal non-radiative transport this matters a lot.
But acrylic blocks in that experiment are static. No convective circulation. Maybe that will save AGW? No –
http://oi62.tinypic.com/zn7a4y.jpg
Here two insulated matt black tubs of water are used. One tub has clear water, the other water dyed black so light will not visibly penetrate 2mm depth. Exposed to SW, tub A with the clear water reaches the higher average temperature, and the higher surface temperature.
Christopher, there is no way around it. The selective surface effect is what is keeping the oceans 33C above theoretical blackbody temp of -18C not DWLWIR as claimed by the Church of Radiative Climastrology.
So there you have it Christopher, the proof, via the scientific method of empirical experiment, showing that AGW is a physical impossibility. DWLWIR cannot be slowing the cooling rate of the oceans. Due to the selective surface effect of transparent water exposed to SW, the sun alone has the power to heat the oceans to 80C or beyond, were it not for atmospheric cooling. And the atmosphere as you know has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases. Therefore global warming due to human emissions of CO2 is a physical impossibility, because the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere of our ocean planet is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
Here’s the simple facts of climate on our planet, Planet Ocean. –
The sun heats the oceans.
The atmosphere cools the oceans.
Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
Just think Christopher, if you had spent $5000 on building this –
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
– you might have been $25,000 better off.
The good news is that paying out $30,000 USD to end the whole AGW thing and getting back to real environmental problems is a bargain.
Christopher, time to pay the man.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
While I may hope that Christopher sees the benefit in ending the hoax and getting science back on track, I suspect we are going to be treated to $30,000 worth of this –

Alan Clark, paid shill for Big Oil

I have offered a wager to warmists on my Facebook page that I am willing to extend to any and all comers. To wit:
For all of my friends who have bought into the Global Warming nonsense, I have an incredible opportunity for you. If you truly believe that the icecaps are melting and sea level is rising as a result of man’s influence on the climate, then this is a no-brainer for you. Using this gage (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/), I propose a little wager. For every year that sea level rises more than 5mm (~3/16ths of an inch), I will pay you $10,000 and for every year that it rises less than 5mm, you pay me $10,000. Come one, come all. Let David Suzuki know too because I’m sure he’d like to get in on this free money.

It is a scam. As soon as you engage him he starts changing the rules. Then, no matter what you say he simply dismisses it as “All lies”. He thinks the hockey stick is excellent, valid, research, that the commissions of inquiry into Penn State, CRU were all clear, unequivocal rejection of all charges. The leaked emails were hacked and then only carefully selected snippets were taken out of context. He says all IPCC predictions (projections) are accurate, and that is just for starters. Lord Monckton and Alex Jones had a brief discussion about him last week. Of course it does get mainstream media headlines, which is the name of the game.

Mark T

A model is not an experiment… It is a model. That’s part of the problem: climatologists confuse modeling with experimentation.
Mark

Konrad says:
July 6, 2014 at 6:06 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And here we have Konrad, boldly walking into the trap, spouting complete nonsense, which will in turn get used to show that skeptics don’t know what they are talking about. The trap snaps shut on him, but ensnares all of us.

Jack Hydrazine

“You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off. ”
So why isn’t CO2 used in double and triple pane windows? Is it because argon reflects IR better than CO2? Plus, there’s 25 times more of it in the atmosphere than CO2. If anything the AGWers should be freaking out about argon. But what is the absolute worst global warming gas on the planet? Water vapor. And there’s about 100 times more of it than CO2.

From above:

This paper falsifies the last 20 years of simulations at the 90% confidence interval, within that blog entry you can find another paper that falsifies them at the 98% confidence interval. That paper cites a third that falsified at the 95% confidence interval. What this means is that there is less than a 10%, 2% or 5% chance that the models are wrong by chance.

Should that not be “there is now less than a 10%, 2% or 5% chance that the models are right by chance” ?
Or, phrasing it differently, “Now, after 20 years of data to compare with model predictions, there is only a 10%, 2% or 5% chance that any of the 23 models could be still be right.”

I critiqued not adding the benefits of CO2 because of the paragraph on social cost. Surely if this so called social cost is referenced, the benefits of CO2 should also be relevant. Less land required to grow food… etc. Forests are being cut down to burn as a fuel source as an alternative to burning fossil fuel, which causes environmental harm that should also be taken into consideration.

Dr Ball,
Why not turn the tables on him? Offer $1 million if he can prove AGW exists, using empirical evidence and the Scientific Method.
He will have to show his scientific evidence, verifying the fraction of a degree of global rise in T attributable specifically to human emissions, and it must be testable and measurable.
$1 million is much more impressive, and might get some media attention.
[Disclaimer: models are not evidence. Peer reviewed papers are not evidence. Assertions are not evidence. Quoting Arrhenius is not evidence. Scientific evidence is raw data, and/or verifiable empirical observations.]

Konrad

davidmhoffer says:
July 6, 2014 at 6:16 pm
——————————
“And here we have Konrad, boldly walking into the trap, spouting complete nonsense, which will in turn get used to show that skeptics don’t know what they are talking about. The trap snaps shut on him, but ensnares all of us.”
“complete nonsense” cries David. There’s no need to read what Konrad has written! No need to try those simple empirical experiments for yourself! No need at all!! AGW is real I tell you!!!
Say David, who’s “us”?

What are the “official” probabilities that the IPCC claims for its 2100 Clima-pocolyse of Doom: of death, doom, and destruction?
Do they claim +4 deg C as a matter of fact? Or do they assign various probabilities of a +1 deg C, +2 deg C increase, +3 and +4 increase?

Konrad;
“complete nonsense” cries David. There’s no need to read what Konrad has written! No need to try those simple empirical experiments for yourself! No need at all!! AGW is real I tell you!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve read your drivel many times, and have gone to great lengths in other threads to show you that your theory is falsified by observational data which shows the exact opposite of your claims. You persist, there’s no point debating you further. You are only a slight step away from Sl@yer nonsense which has been banned in this forum.

Jean Parisot

The models aren’t just failing to describe temperature trends, they are also failing to describe the internals such as water vapor and the tropical upper atmosphere. Add those failures to the omission of cloud feedbacks, and we never even get to talk about temperature.

TheLastDemocrat

1.
“Christopher Keating says he’ll give $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to prove that human-instigated climate change isn’t real.”
Science does not prove anything. Science only tests theories to determine whether one strategy or another can falsify any of them.
There is no standard at which some claim morphs into “scientific knowledge.”
Science is a process.
So, all of this is going nowhere.
2.
The burden of proof is on those who have a causal claim. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes incoming solar energy (detectable by heat measurement) in our atmosphere to be retained.
Since there are many observations that run counter to this hypothesis, such as the lack of cause-effect in the recent “pause,” and that the prevailing temps and variability are within normal limits of variability, the AGW cultists have quite a case to prove “above and beyond” natural variability.
3.
Show your work; the AGW cultists cannot and will not show their work.
4.
These people are cultists. Each will have to make a break from the socially-isolated true believers in order for the preposterousness to become apparent. Many have. Other than that, you cannot discuss things reasonably with them; it is not about reason, or science.
You cannot have a reasonable discussion with them. They cannot carry out a conversation without getting livid, or making irrelevant God-Complex special-knowledge pleas to “reason.” Or both. To try is to argue with a brainwashed person. This is sad, but true, for friends and family of mine. So, I don’t say this with any bemusement.
We can only allow them to continue to fall over their own wrongness until enough give up on the charade. And love them unconditionally, as you would a cult-member family member.

Here is my analogy to this bet:
Claim: Fertilizer makes plants grow faster.
Concern: If plants grow 10,000 times as fast, they will over grow our cities faster than we can cut the vegetation back, block off our roads and airports, and make the oceans un-navigable.
Alarm: This will destroy civilization as we know it.
Skeptic: Uh….there’s no evidence to show that plants would start growing ten thou-
Bet: Idiot! Do you deny that fertilizer causes plants to grow faster? I’ll give you $30,000 if you can prove that fertilizer doesn’t make plants grow faster.

jakee308

When they can predict the weather 6 months to a year from now then they can tell me what they think the weather will be decades from now and I might listen.
Until they have the model and the proxies right, they’re just waving eagle feathers, rattling bones, blowing smoke and chanting to some deity as far as I’m concerned.

RoHa

Send it in. Got to be in it to win it.
(But I’m pretty sure they will wriggle and re-define until your entry fails.)

“Observations->Hypothesis->Experiment->Analysis. If we were to go back to the ’90’s Then we could state that this was doled out as…”
That’s exactly what AGW isn’t, and it didn’t start in the ’90’s. Well, it actually started in the 1890’s. And with physics that you’ve described. Carbon dioxide impedes outgoing IR. That’s the reason for expecting that putting a whole lot of it in the air to cause warming. Not a hypothesis based on observed warming.
So we put a whole lot of CO2 in the air and it warmed. If it hadn’t, then at some stage the that might cast doubt on the physics. But it did.

Jim Hodgen

You missed the actual quantitative predictions tied to specific atmospheric chemistry and physics. The (as I recall) basis for the runaway warming was to be a 3.7 W/meter squared excess downwelling that would cause a mid-troposphere/mid-tropical heat reservoir to form that wold push the boundaries of warm air northwards, disturbing the jet stream and enmeshing the temperate latitudes in a stagnant pool of CO2 and heat…
That is also a testable hypothesis… and kudos to whoever came up with the mechanisms. The calumny goes to the people that chose to carry on with the fiction after those mechanisms and predictions WERE falsified.
As it now stands, without that clear mechanism there is no physical basis for AGW. No mechanism except for some nebulous, qualitative ‘CO2 causes warming’ dreck that is supported by table-driven physics (as opposed to explicit, algorithmically modeled/experimentally updated mechanisms) that has no ability to hindcast, no ability to highlight data anomalies, no ability to forecast but a proven ability to summon federal money like Justin Bieber pulled in pre-pubescent teens to concerts for years.
The falsification of the initial mechanisms and the failure to propose an additional ones is a more damning and fatal blow than any flick on the nose to the already peripatetic models.
There is no mechanism with experimental support for the runaway scenario.
There is no valid metric (and average global surface temperature is definitely not a viable proxy for a warning signal) to identify risk or business-as-usual scenarios.
There is no predictive value in 80% of current ‘research’ because it is all derivative to the initial – and falsified – hypothesis.
The last real addition to fundamental research was the Argo buoys… and that data is in the process of being redacted into trash now as well to match the Enron-scale fraud being perpetrated on the surface temperature data sets.
Pardon the rant… just think about adding the base mechanisms for changing the climate ( the heat pools) and add that in. There is no warmist answer to the falsification or replacement for a fundamental driver that would be different this time from the last 5 to 10 times the earth has had high CO2 and wonderful, rich, diverse, explosively life-filled biomes at the same time… until the ice ages cleaned all that up.

Dr Burns

“The problem with the climate change challenge is that no one is denying that there is likely an anthropogenic signal.”
What rubbish! Exactly what is the “anthropogenic signal” ?
Where is the “anthropogenic signal” in the data for the past 2 decades?

Dr. Strangelove

“Keating is offering two prizes: One that will pay $10,000 to anyone who can prove — via the scientific method — that anthropogenic climate change is not real, and one that will pay $1,000 to anyone who can provide any scientific evidence at all that it isn’t real.”
Keating does not understand the scientific method. The burden of proof lies on those who are claiming man is the cause of most (>90%) of the global warming since 1950. AGW is a hypothesis and all hypotheses need scientific evidence to be accepted.
The prosecutor cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Tom is the murderer. So the prosecutor asked Tom to prove his innocence. Hilarious. What is asserted without (sufficient) evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Steve Case

” Faced with the mountain of problems surrounding uncertainty, poor methodology, awful ethics and analysis, most skeptics, myself included just call the whole thing bullshit.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I would like to see Konrad’s comment here expanded to a full article. I have a physicist friend I would like to show that to.

Siberian_Husky

Please please please submit.
And get your ass handed to you on a plate.

Bruce Ploetz

Nobody is ever going to see a penny of this prize. You cannot use logic to convince a zealot. When Prophecy Fails by Festinger shows that even in the face of incontrovertible and undeniable evidence to the contrary, a true believer will cling to his beliefs. The example given is of an “end of the world” prophecy at a certain date. When the date arrives the true believers conjure up a new belief to patch over the failed one, they do not reject the earlier belief.
The true believers in “climate change” (as if there were ever a time when the climate did not change! Except in the opening song of the musical Camelot) need the climate and the earth to be damaged by man. They don’t like people and wish that many would die. From Rousseu and his “Noble Savage” to Maurice Strong and the UNEP the message is from the Pogo cartoon (“We have met the enemy and he is us!”) When the climate cooled in the 70s it was us. When it climbed in the 80s and 90s, we were cooking the planet. Now that it has paused it is overpopulation that is weirding the planet and causing storms, droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and unfriendly fish. When it starts cooling again it will be us again. The idea at the heart of the matter is that people are bad, there are way too many of them, any success of people at adapting to the environment and succeeding must be stopped by any means necessary. If pseudoscience can be invented to further this noble cause, all power, money and support to the “science”. If it takes scare tactics or a big war that will be next.
You won’t get anywhere using logic and facts with these guys.

Ashby Manson

Beautiful. Send it in.

It’s also a logical impossibility to prove a negative… so I’d say his money is safe.
(Popperian falsification not withstanding, it may be possible to prove that someone did not attend a meeting or that a particle does not behave in a precisely specified way. But complex scientific theories are another story. Newtonian Mechanics was not “disproved” with the arrival of Einstein’s theories. Rather it became a special case within a broader context.)

Climate change has nothing to do with CO2, AGW or emissions. It is solely a
matter of Earth orbit oscillations, understandably calculated for any person in:
Joachim Seifert: Das Ende der globalen Erwärmung, ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4
(2010). As long as details of the Earth orbit are excluded from discussion, the
temp increase in the 20. Ctry and the hiatus in the 21. Ctry cannot be explained.
Those people who set up those bets will not read arguments which falsify their
position.

ladylifegrows says:
July 6, 2014 at 7:48 pm
I would like to see Konrad’s comment here expanded to a full article. I have a physicist friend I would like to show that to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is sufficient information in the post as is for any physicist to comment on. I propose you show the comment to your physicist friend and report back as to what s/he said.
For anyone interested in how it actually works, there was a very detailed series of articles on WUWT that goes in depth as to how the GHE works and can be verified and directly measured:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
The debate is not, and never was, about the existence of the GHE. The debate is about the sum total of the effects plus feed backs (sensitivity). Getting suckered into an “it exists vs no it doesn’t” argument simply feeds the warmists with the ability to paint skeptics as science illiterates. I recommend also Willis’ fine “Steel Greenhouse” articles.

Konrad

ladylifegrows says:
July 6, 2014 at 7:48 pm
“I would like to see Konrad’s comment here expanded to a full article. I have a physicist friend I would like to show that to.”
————————————-
No need to look at those images or do those experiments. Davidmhoffer has ruled that they are “complete nonsense” and “drivel” 😉

Richard T

How certain are we that temperatures today are actually higher than the 1930’s ?

Konrad

davidmhoffer says:
July 6, 2014 at 8:13 pm
“The debate is not, and never was, about the existence of the GHE.”
———————————————————————————-
It is now 😉
Oh, and you don’t get to “frame” the debate for “us”.

dbstealey says:
July 6, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Dr Ball,
Why not turn the tables on him? Offer $1 million if he can prove AGW exists, using empirical evidence and the Scientific Method. . .

Exactly. The Alarmists made the claim. Let them demonstrate that there is any measurable contribution to global temperature by man, using empirical evidence and testable hypotheses. Until then, assume the null hypothesis, i.e. there is none.
/Mr Lynn

Owen in GA

Nick,
And it warmed…but then it didn’t! You’ll have to in some way explain both the rise and the pause using root causes and show the theoretical basis to even begin to get that half-truth through. It went up in the 1980-2000 period, but then somehow flattened out at 1998 levels for the last 16 years even though CO2 levels are rising at the same or larger rate. That is a problem for the theory. Also the temperature rise in the first half of the 20th century when there was no where near the rise in CO2 needs a good physical explanation.
Basically your post of 7:21PM is a very large FAIL.

Truthseeker

“You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off.”
If the Earth is giving off those IR wavelenghs, doesn’t that mean the CO2 is not very good at absorbing them?