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

Those are hard numbers, global temps come from soft numbers often adjusted due to missing data.

 

Right, that's why the BEA says "measuring GDP for the U.S. economy is always a work in progress."

 

[video=youtube_share;NtcNjoDe5Pg]http://youtu.be/NtcNjoDe5Pg[/video]

 

Strawman alert...

Nobody can prove AGW either.

 

No not at all. AGW is a physical process. The process has to match locally not just on the average globally.

 

Of course they can. A) Scientist takes temperature. B) Scientist waits until same day in future, when temperature is higher C) Scientist draws lines between two chosen points showing upward trend.

Case closed. Or at least the level of proof that has been sufficient to declare "the science is settled!!"

 

Except when it doesn't show an upward trend, like the last 17 years 10 months.

 

Well crap! Isn't that terribly inconvenient, when you want to sell only warming, all warming, all the time? I suppose you could argue that during the highest yearly emissions of CO2 in the HISTORY of the human race...and temperature doesn't go up...then it is time to pretend that the entire planet just decided to...do...something else? I've got it!! The oceans ate my warming!!

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/

 

Only denialists talk like that. People who understand the science of AGW understand natural variability. They also know that the hottest recorded temperature for the earth was in 2005 and 2010 and every decade since the1960s has been warmer than the previous one.

Oh yes the two graphs http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/global-warming.png

One was due primarily to natural forcings.

The other was due primarily to human sourced influences.

How do they know? By looking at the evidence - duh!

 

Of course not. This is about science, not mathematics or alcohol.

You do know what the 'G' in 'AGW' stands for, don't you? AGW is nothing more than the theory that humans are the main reason for the observed increase of about 0.8 °C in mean global surface temperature. It does not say that climate forcings or their trends will be homogeneous at all points around the globe. The physical process you're thinking about is called the Greenhouse Effect, which was hypothesized in 1824, measured in 1860, quantified in 1896, and confirmed in the 1930s through 1960s. Don't try to make it into something it is not.

That one has already been refuted. Repeating it just makes you look foolish.

 

What about the solar variability?

The sun has increased significantly in TSI from 1900 to 1950. Also during this time, we were putting aerosols in the air that mitigated this extra natural incoming heat. In the 70's we formed the EPA, and temperatures again increased as we cleaned the skies of aerosols. The last dozen years or so are relatively stable in global temperatures.

Are you sure about the knowledge you claim?

The IPCC claims a "low understanding" of the solar variability.

 

Solanki and Krivova looked into that exact question in 2003, and while TSI correlates well with the temperature record prior to 1970, it can not explain the warming observed since then. And if you're going to argue that the lack of aerosols make up the difference, you'll have to explain why there was no difference when they were present.

 

Scientists are quite up to speed in measuring forcings including negative aerosols and where most of the heat is being held. The science is clear that AGW is happening. As for solar intensity it is not that hard to measure.

 

Yeah, since they don't attribute the same amount of warming from 1900 to the 1940's to man but it was just about the same as attributed to AGW from the 70's to 2000 I guess you can just pick and choose.

 

Bwaahahahaha! Keep trying. Too bad everyone else is trying to explain away the hiatus. Oops.

 

Wow...

Think about what I said. The aerosols built up slowly, they diminished slowly. If they never existed to begin with, we would have seen the majority of the solar effect by 1980 give or take a few years. There is the thermal inertia of the oceans, and several other effects.

I don't care if people believe me or not. I will let the future's history just my words on this topic.

 

The science is not settled and there are several climatologists who agree with me. When the climatologists stop using correlation equals causation, and stop making up things like the magical H2O feedback, I will start taking these educated indoctrinated idiots more serious.

[video=youtube;yXbMWdl0Cds]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbMWdl0Cds[/video]

 

New data, new analysis. Unfortunately you haven't got any.

Yeah I think I have most of them here. http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/09/prominent-climatologists-skeptical-of.html These guys I see refuted ad nauseum but feel free to go with the 3% and did you know genetics proves the Bible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auygJmEcgLY

Good point - suffocation and lack of oxygen are mere correlates. Pretty arrogant to make the leap to causation.

Yes scientists since the 19th century have pointed out the greenhouse feedback of water vapor. Thanks for letting me know they are bunch of indoctrinated idiots.

 

Let glacier melt stand as a rough proxy for measured AGW. To make it simple, less human caused earlier, more human caused later. I hope that's not too difficult.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/15/3471750/humans-glacier-melt-faster-study/

 

Maybe you should run the numbers sometime.

By what percentage has the average water content increase in the atmosphere, and what warming does this feedback from CO2 warming cause?

It never amazes me how many people believe the politicized science of warming. It has definitely become a faith, because people believe without questioning it or understanding it.

 

Well lets see what NASA has to say.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

 

I'd be more interested for a proof that governments can fix global warming.

 

But when they quantify it, and it says that it'll be 2100 before we can even be outside natural variability, well folks just can't STAND that particular piece of science can they? Them thar scienze ain't settled yets....

Except for all those other natural warm cycles folks aren't fond of talking about. But this time, because humans are around, it must be our fault. Funny thing, that.

If that were true than Mann's work would never have been adopted by the IPCC the minute he published it. It has taken nearly 20 years to correct that error....and it all started with people choosing to look at the evidence they WANTED...

 

The math doesn't pan out to add 2 W/m^2.

How about telling us by what percentage the atmospheric water would have to increase by to add 2 W/m^2...

This should be good!

At the same time, by how much does the CO2 need to increase to add 1.8 F (1.0 C).

The man who wrote this is using political science. Not science.

http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/ADessler

 

No it isn't. Because otherwise people wouldn't be claiming "the science is settled" because all they are proving right THERE is that they don't even know what science is. Period.