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

they fixed acid rain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program

 

Yeah NASA does political science. Maybe you've been looking in the mirror too long.

 

Do you have a clue what you are talking about? When do you get outside of natural variability? Perhaps you are confused by the greater confidence that attaches to longer term prediction. That is because over time a whole bunch of high and low variabilities have been balanced out so the variable in progress is not so offsetting from the prediction range.

It's because they are part of the conspiracy to hide the truth and want to sic the redwood militia on your behind.

Funny how many independent investigators have confirmed his hockey stick graph.

I don't know what error your talking but the kind of rookie errors that denialists make never get corrected.

 

Government has a history of spending a great deal of money to fix problems that aren't significant problems. Given the relatively minor effects of acid rain, and relatively easy solutions to it (costly solutions), one wonders just how much treasure must be expended on "fixing" the climate. Perhaps if they can solve the poverty problem first, I might be a believer. After 47 years of the "War on Poverty" with nothing to show for it, it's going to take a lot of convincing. Then there's the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror. What's next, the "War on Climate"?

And, of course, if we are going to address pollution, should we not focus first on the worst polluter of all? Want to take a guess as to who that is?

 

of course you won't acknowledge any of the successes at this link, any more than you did the acid rain success

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Governmentsuccesses.htm

 

You mean China? Yes of course we should. How would you suggest we do that?

 

Think I already posted this but can't find it, No one can prove or disprove Global Warming. That is a Scientific fact. What we can prove scientifically is that the Climate is always changing, and it has been changing since the beginning of "earth" time. We are still in a pre-glacial age. IMO, we can do little to make a dramatic change in reversing the climate and reducing the use of fossil fuels has been scientifically proven to result in little effect on the temperature of the earth and the ocean waters. Not enough to reverse the climate cycle.

There is no need to "tax" carbon emissions, especially without having a lower cost form of energy. It will only increase the cost to consumers and do very little to change the climate. Taxing emissions will only increase revenue for the Federal Government, increase consumer electric costs. Until we can develop another form of cost effective energy, the current method will be the most cost effective method.

We need to stop importing and ramp up exporting oil and natural gas.

Gas prices under Obama and the Senate Dems has remained at a high cost level, even though we have more oil and gas reserves that go un tapped.

 

Since one of the glacier melts uncovered a forest that grew 1,200 years ago the short time of glacier measurements mean little. It was warmer before due to natural variability and melt still does not prove AGW. I hope that's not too difficult.

Receding glacier reveals PROOF that it was warmer 1,200 years ago than today

 

no it's not a fact, all that's necessary to disprove global warming is to show that the earth is cooling

it isn't cooling, just the opposite

 

Nobody can "prove" the Higgs Boson exists either, but we can show that there's a high probability that it does exist. Same with global warming.

Actually, there's much more direct evidence for global warming. We directly see the outgoing longwave radiation squeezing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands. We directly see the longwave coming back down to earth (backradiation) increasing. Those are smoking guns in terms of showing that greenhouse gases are changing the heat balance of the earth.

As far as dealing with China goes, we do that by setting an example. As long as we pollute, China can point to us and say "But they do it too!". After we clean up our act, they lose that excuse. When the whole planet tells China to either comply or face big tariffs on their goods, China will have to comply.

 

It is a global process with a global pattern. That pattern is not consistent with the observed pattern.

AGW is a theory that spectral broadening in the upper troposphere will increase the IR bands of CO2 resulting in more down-welling radiation per the theories put forward by Plass. You really dont have a clue what we are talking about do you?

Nope they will be hetorgenous around the globe based on the microclimates of their relaitve grids. So far the models have failed to replicate the observed climate changes of these micro-climates proving that something is wrong in the theory. Where teh theory correct the micro climates should change, hetrogenously, in the pattern predicted by AGW theory.

True, wrong, wrong, some what correct.

The greenhouse gas effect was not measured in 1860. The instrumentation didn't exist at the time. Tyndall observed the bahaviour of gasses and could see which gasses had a greater effect but he had no way of measuring them. Iin the1880s Arrhenius said quite specifically in his paper that the instrumentation to actually experimentally measure the IR effect of CO2 didn't exist. His estimate came from using Stefan-Boltzman. The instrumentation to actually measure the IR effect of CO2 didn't exist until the mid 20th century. And currently instead of verifying Plass measurements are contradicting him. CO2 is increasing but down-welling radiation is decreasing directly contradicting the Plass which is the beadrock of AGW theory. It seems that other feedbacks like clouds dwarf CO2.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1

 

Wrong as usual.

 

it's you that's wrong

 

very few if any intelligent person is refuting global warming the earths climate has always warmed and cooled it has always been in constant flux the debate is is it man made and if so by how much so why doesn't that Physicist make an honest offer on the real debate not some straw man argument

 

don't you think the billions of tons of pollutants, dumped into the atmosphere, have some effect?

 

why wont you discuss the real argument most intelligent persons are not refuting global warming the debate is is it man made and if so by how much

you claim it is the release of man made CO2 in the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuel but encase you didn't know man only contributes to about 5% of CO2 atmospheric emissions and another fact there has been a sharp rise in CO2 in the atmosphere in that last 20 years but we haven't seen any increase of warming in that same time frame so even the premise that CO2 emissions causes the warming is debatable

more and more scientist are studying the cycles of the sun and the consequence those cycle have on the earths climate and the are seeing a direct coalition between the two the sun goes through cycles of activity and they line up with the earths warming and cooling that has been going on from day one. the suns activity has always been in flux the same as the earths temperature

 

Not warming no!

 

you need to prove direct causation between the two, not speculation or assumptions and no scientist has yet to do that and as i stated before man only contributes to about 5% of the earths CO2 atmospheric emissions

and once again in the last 20 years there has been a sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 with virtually no increase in earths temperature in that same time frame

 

Naw, you have no evidence. You have what you think is evidence, but alas, you fail. Like I've stated over and over in the forum the past year, the IPCC AR5 report agreed to the non warming. That is your global committee that I still don't recognize as competent. And yet you go against them. naw it is you wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

He can't and won't and will continue to post lying links proving he has no idea what is going on.

 

A scientist who thinks its possible to prove a negative.

Says all there is to say about the Holy Church of Warmist God.

 

show me where i claimed that

any scientist knows that a theory can be disproved

for example, if one wanted to falsify agw, all you have to do is show that the earth is cooling

of course you won't look at the evidence

 

First you have to have a theory, and for that you must first prove the hypostesis. Which hasn't been done yet, since you haven't been able to provide that experiment that proves what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures.

FYI, a model is not evidence. A failed model is proof of no evidence however. And now..........there are 97% of models wrong.

BTW, you provide that experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperature and you'll have a new believer.

 

you have no clue what you're talking about

 

sure I do! You stated you had a theory. What is it and how was it proven?

 

show mw where i said i have a theory