Physicist Offers $10,000 to Anyone Who Can Disprove Global Warming

Apparently in a simple system but climate is a wicked system. For instance, the hypothesis was that increased CO2 would increase IR radiation back to earth, but it has been decreasing instead. Increased CO2 was supposed to increase moisture in the air (the multiplier) but it has not increased and in fact decreased. Throughout historic records, CO2 lags temperature and we have had warming since the depths of the Little Ice Age so it may just be lagging the temperature increase. In fact anthropomorphic CO2 only accounts for about 4% of all CO2.

 

That would depend on whether or not the SCIENCE showing that CO2 lags temperature change works within YOUR assumptions. You will have to go determine for yourself whether or not that SCIENCE claims to be "in a feedback system" and at what level.

Of course, I wouldn't want to discuss how Al Gore, perhaps utilizing the very techniques advocated by Stephen Schneider and you are trying to wiggle free from, tried to put the cart before the horse. Nice cartoon, but it doesn't discount the SCIENCE showing the trend and relationship in temperature/CO2.

 

I could never prove to you that we live in a heliocentric solar system.

I feel so defeated.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you even have a clue what you are talking about?

 

That's disputable. Some folks think we were slowly bucking the holocene trend since we started burning coal and destroying forests. The important thing though is you acknowledge the AGW effect if only after world war 2. Good going. You're not as hopeless as you have been appearing.

 

Of course and its obvious. But denialist faith requires only a one way street. The strange labyrinth of denialist nonthink is a wonder to behold. They seem to have an allergy to reality and yet they are on the march by the millions, constantly having each other's back.

One can only ask what do they want? What are they afraid of? What brought them here? What kind of psychological world do they inhabit?

 

Showing your own non-think now? Guess so. So far you repeat falsifiable and irrelevant studies as fact and belittle people. You are no better than those you think are wrong.

 

What's a falsifiable study? I don't even know what that means.

 

Read it and learn. http://warming.sdsu.edu/arrhenius_paper_1896.pdf

I feel like a broken record, but that is not what the science says. https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

Once again, that is not what the science says. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/local_66705.pdf

With global temperature decreasing for 5,000 years before the Medieval Warm Period, wasn't the Little Ice Age just a continuation of the normal trend? And if CO2 historically lags temperature, but now it is leading it, wouldn't that indicate that something has changed?

Humans are responsible for about 4% of all CO2 sources, but only about 0.06% of the sinks. When atmospheric CO2 is increasing by about 15 gigatons per year, and humans produce over 30 gigatons, that 4% is more than enough to explain the increase. Besides, we can actually measure the ratio of natural and human CO2 in the atmosphere. http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

This is what the science says.
http://www.knmi.nl/~hurkvd/docs/Friedlingstein.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/4/042022/pdf/1755-1315_6_4_042022.pdf

Guy Stewart Calendar showed that increasing atmospheric CO2 would lead to warmer global temperature way back in 1938, long before Al Gore, Stephen Schneider and climate models.
http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qjcallender38.pdf

 

Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains

The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW theory which states increasing greenhouse gases including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared “back-radiation.”

 

This paper does nothing of the sort. It studied one small area of the US in detail to refine our understanding of downswelling spectral infrared radiance. If you bothered to read past the abstract, you would have see this:

And you still haven't learned that local trends can differ from global trends. While US surface temperatures exhibit a slight cooling trend over the last 15 years, other regions are warming so the average global temperature continues to rise.

 

You say you can't use regions then use regions in your argument. BTW: this was not supposed to happen according to CO2 centric models.

 

More bad news for global warming catastrophe buffs.

 

Please, you never read that. If you had then you'd provide the language that actually agrees with your BS. So you fail again. Still no evidence..LoSiNg

 

So is the drought in CA considered to be caused by GW by you?

 

You don't understand how averages work, do you?

 

Historical evidence contradicting those building bad models is unfair!! Someone might notice and then the grant proposals to reinforce the "science is settled" side might dry up!!

 

You dont even know what actual temperature is. Like I have said a degree celsius is 0.52kWh. Temperature is just energy. Satellites measure the radiated energy of the troposphere. There is no need for a thermoter to calibrate a satellite.

No they don't you are just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. You simply dont know and cant explain your position. You are reduced ot posting links that you hope support your point. Of course they never do because you are fundementally wrong but cant admit to yourself that you arent' as smart as you thought you were.

 

You know that climate models and AGW theory isn't' just about averages dont you?

I know that a lot of warmmonger scientists try and tell that to their faithful because they feel that their faithful are stupid enough to fall for it but that doesn't make it true.

 

That's the conversion from Celsius Heat Unit to Watt-hours, and it only equals radiated energy for perfect black bodies. Last time I checked, neither Earth or its atmosphere were perfect black bodies. To determine the actual temperature, you need to know the emissivity of the surface you're measuring which can only be determined empirically from actual temperature measurements.

As an anonymous person posting on an internet forum, I try to support my argument with links, because expecting others to simply take my word for it would be stupid.

You know what the "mean" in "global mean surface temperature" means, don't you?

 

So we have gone from your original argument that the surface record is used to calibrate the satellite record to your present argument that the thermometers that are nothing like the thermometers used the Stevenson screens that make up the surface record were used once many many years ago to determine the emissivity of various gasses.

You have have gone so far astray from your original argument in search of some kind of a thermometer being used somewhere that you have already falsified your original argument.

Global circulation models are 3 dimensional gridded models that model the circulation of the atmosphere.

Global mean temperature of GCMs is simply something that can be calculated from a GCMs final output but a GCM is in no way calculating a global mean temperature. Its actually calculating the state of the atmosphere is several gridded boxes. And has been shown many times these boxes are frequently wrong in many areas and modelers try to ignore the obvious errors through averaging.

 

If you think my argument has changed during this discussion, then I doubt you ever really understood it.

Global mean surface temperature is simply the average temperature across Earth's surface. It is estimated by measuring temperatures at various points around the globe and then calculating a weighted average. Global circulation models are simply tools used to make projections about how temperature and other variables might change based on changes in other variables. Like any other complex model, they are frequently wrong at the microscopic level, but still make accurate predictions at the macroscopic level.

 

I dont think you understand your arguments.You totally forgot what you were arguing.

What significance does the average global temperature have to anyone? Its not even are real thing but an abstraction.

Being accurate on the average is meaningless. If you are cold where you are supposed to be hot but hotter than it is supposed to be else where then your physics is wrong and you are only close on the average by chance and/or tinkering with the model.

 

Remember when you said temperature is nothing more than a measure of the amount of energy in a given system? Wouldn't global mean surface temperature then be just a measure of the total energy in Earth's climate? To know how temperature in a given location is likely to change, wouldn't you have to know how the total system in changing first?

 

Windigo is right, global temperature is really an abstraction since there is not such thing as a global temperature reading but something that has to be assembled from actual local temperatures. In that many errors can be made in such a system, it is not a reliable measure.

 

GDP and the S&P 500 are also abstractions. Do you think they are unreliable indicators of economic performance?