Peter Laux, Locomotive Engineman from Australia, “will pay $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”
See Peter Laux’s signed and authorized Statutory Declaration (affidavit) to this effect HERE.The Statutory Declaration is a legal and binding document: “a false declaration is liable to the penalties of perjury.” The authorising witness is Constable Jack Armstrong 37499 of the Victoria Police, Australia.
As stated in the Statutory Declaration, all submissions for the “$10K Climate Challenge” must be made using the submitter’s true identity and must be submitted as a comment to the present Climate Guy blog post.
It is understood that $10K (AUS) will be paid to the first person to send a complete submission. This challenge is open for 20 years from the date of this post.
Warmists of the world: The ball is in your court. The $10K Climate Challenge is declared open.
-Climate Guy
Peter Laux’s Statement - Re: $10K Climate Challenge is posted HERE.
185 comments:
Greetings Denis!
A sound bit of commonsense from Peter Laux! Let the 'warmist' posers rise to the challenge, but I suspect if they succeed they will also have demonstrated that black is the same as white, and that up is the same as down!
Some of your readers might be interested in this: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TCR9NKJ0. Peter's Challenge now features on slide 10, and Peter's interview by Dennis is via slide 124.
There are two themes to the slide show. The first is "Don't believe everything you've been told - check it out for yourself!" and the second is "Follow the money!"
I suspect that some warmists will try and use John Cook's unskeptical website to try and do this challenge. Jo Nova has done a good rebuttal to Cook's 'empirical evidence' here http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/ and Lubos has debunked the whole site here http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
Anyway, good luck Mr Laux. I doubt anyone warmist will be able to meet your challenge.
An alarmist made the reverse challenge. http://agmates.ning.com/forum/topics/an-easy-grand-for-the?commentId=3535428%3AComment%3A168003
Hey All, to take this idea one step further and make it more prominent, how about:
On a crowdfunding site (say like kickstarter.com), start a crowdfunding drive to raise USD1,000,000 in prize money. This prize money will be awarded to the first person or team that can provide conclusive empirical proof showing manmade CO2 is responsible for global warming. This competition will run for 2 years. All submissions will be checked and verified by statistical experts.
Once and for all, let’s settle this global warming argument. At the end of the competition, we will get a conclusive answer one way or the other.
If one million people contribute $1 each or 100,000 people contribute $10 each, we will have the needed prize money.
Without an independent authority or test to decide what constitutes a conclusive argument, or any rules about what kinds of evidence are in or out of court, this "challenge" is worthless.
If Peter is genuine about his bet he can lay a long-term wager with James Annan about future average temperatures here: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/betting.html
I don't have that much cash to offer , but I have a sure US$300 for any student who masters the classical physics of radiantly heated balls , like our planet , on my CoSy.com and computes actual equilibrium temperatures for various spectra of interest such as that of the lumped earth and atmosphere .
Of course , it entails some real thought and work , but should explain most of the 3% , 10c , warmer we seem to be compared to a gray ball in our orbit .
Hi there.
In the scheme of things $10k is not much. The climate lobby continues to pick up many, many multiples of that on a daily basis, by simply jaw-boning. Economically it makes no sense to engage in justification when one is paid handsomely irrespective of scientific validity. Besides it would be too much like hard work for some of these frauds.
Like most scams, the 'threat' of AGW will unwind quietly, while the most prominent scam artists slip out the back door, so to speak. The unwind will be a long drawn out affair, reflecting the extent and size of the extremist positions held. The leading lights of the AGW alarmist industry will disappear from public view to lead a quiet life in retirement, funded by the fruits of their scam.
JamesH,
i'm afraid in your effort to divert attention you have kicked a 'own goal'.
Bemoaning what constitutes a 'conclusive argument and what kinds of evidence' reveals the science is very 'unsettled' and not settled as the warmist claim.
To answer the inquiry, the type of evidence needs to be 'empirical' and the argument 'conclusive' - look up the definitions.
Denis will be the judge not me and I am unconcerned who doesn't like that, I do, its MY money at stake, no one else's.
I am bemused that you deem to be arbiter of my life and tell me how to conduct myself in a 'genuine ' manner.
According to you that is me 'betting' on temperatures on a site of your choosing!
Pardon me James but this has confused me, did I marry you on a drunken spree in Las Vegas?
Or have you been voted the god in my life to be the arbiter of all and how I do ?
Stick to topic James, as we say in my country, "If you cant piss, get off the pot."
As an additional layer of guaranty, I believe Peter's Statutory Declaration can be considered a contract so the claimant could sue Peter under contract law. Then the question would be resolved within the rigorous process of the courts. A victorious claimant would also be entitled to his/her legal fees, if Australia is like Canada in that regard.
This is a serious challenge that awaits serious submissions.
My short sweet answer in graph form is here
Regards,
Andrew
Speaking of serious bets, I went to the site Geoff Brown indicated http://agmates.ning.com/forum/topics/an-easy-grand-for-the?commentId=3535428%3AComment%3A168003
and the challenge reads from a Grant Bussell
" if anyone finds me one research paper, in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, that falsifies anthropogenic global warming (i.e. the net warming effect of increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases') I'll give you $1,000."
So I have given him this peer-reviewed paper by German Professor Gerlich and Dr Tscheuschner:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Which was first published in the "International Journal of Modern Physics, Volume 23, Number 3, January 30, 2009."
I wonder if the warmist will pay ?
Special thanks to Hans Schreuder and his site, www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com, which also features some of Denis's work.
Hey Peter,
Here is a counter article to the one you propose:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
Both are relevant theoretical discussions but none are conclusive arguments based on empirical facts for planet Earth regarding a contribution from trace gas CO2 to measurable global warming.
@Andrew,
Thanks for the nice graph.
You need to state the conclusive argument to be considered a viable submission.
-denis
Peter that paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner really showcases Dr Gerlich's poor understanding of thermodynamics.
As a funny counterpoint - infrared weather satellites wouldn't work.
Did you look at Arther Smith's Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect that Denis suggested?
Skip to the conclusion if you want;
1. An average surface temperature for a planet is perfectly well defined with or without rotation, and with or without infrared absorbing gases.
2. This average temperature is mathematically constrained to be less than the fourth root of the average fourth power of the temperature, and can in some circumstances (a planet with no or very slow rotation, and low surface thermal inertia) be much less.
3. For a planet with no infrared absorbing or reflecting layer above the surface (and no significant flux of internal energy), the fourth power of the surface temperature always eventually averages to a value determined by the incoming stellar energy flux and relevant reflectivity and emissivity parameters.
4. The only way the fourth power of the surface temperature can exceed this limit is to be covered by an atmosphere that is at least partially opaque to infrared radiation. This is the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
5. The measured average temperature of Earth’s surface is 33 degrees C higher than the limit determined by items (2) and (3). Therefore, Earth is proved to have a greenhouse effect of at least 33K.
Denis - Peter's challenge is basically just a bravado bet isn't it? The catch being the word conclusive.
None of the warming we are experiencing can be replicated in computer models by natural variations alone and it is only when we include human activities that the models correlate with observed changes.
Surely this ability of theory to explain known observation or predict the outcome of observation yet to be preformed is science.
Aspectrum here is a rebuttal to the paper that you listed http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
Did you know that paper actually got graded one of the stupidest AGW paper of all time http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/another-10-of-the-worst-agw-papers-part-3/
As for the graph you showed, well honestly, I think you need to be a little bit more skeptical. The IPCC isn't exactly famous for it's unbiasedness (if that's a word) and the strength of it's data. A spectrum post 1970 warming can very easily be explained by natural factors, like a decrease in cloud cover and an increase in the solar radiation reaching the Earth http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5723/850 or by changes in ocean cycles http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf
Phil Jones has also confirmed in a BBC interview that the warming periods 1860 to 1880 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000 were exactly parallel to each other.
Adam- You're kidding, right? Nova says its a stupid paper because her reader Cohenite - an attorney - says its stupid ipso facto it is a stupid paper - that's pretty inconclusive evidence don't you think?
If I look at one of the papers you offer - Pinker's - I wonder if you understand what it actually says.
I'm reminded of how Monckton misrepresented it and how she was compelled to respond - read her full response here . A few of her points are;
1 Viscount Monckton attempts to directly link the change in surface solar radiation to a change in temperature. He states:
"What, then, caused the third period of warming? Most of that third and most recent period of rapid warming fell within the satellite era, and the satellites confirmed measurements from ground stations showing a considerable, and naturally-occurring, global brightening from 1983-2001 (Pinker et al., 2005)."
This statement in effect equates temperature change with surface solar radiation change which...is only one input into a complex climate process. Also, it is not necessarily the case that global brightening is naturally-occurring; it can be caused by anthropogenic aerosols or changes in the atmospheric moisture content as well as clouds, possibly affected by increasing CO2 levels.
2 Viscount Monckton states the following about the data used in our study:
Allowing for the fact that Dr. Pinker's result depended in part on the datasets of outgoing radiative flux from the ERBE satellite that had not been corrected at that time for orbital decay, it is possible to infer a net increase in surface radiative flux amounting to 0.106 W m-2 year-1 over the period, compared with the 0.16 W m-2 year-1 found by Dr. Pinker."
In the Pinker et al. (2005) study, no use is made of outgoing radiative flux from ERBE observations; observations from ERBE are not used at all. The observations used are from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP).
Aspectrum I also gave you a rebuttal to that paper (Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect). Either you didn't see it or you simply ignored it. I also think you should read this http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/lamberts-pinker-tape-ambush-pr-stunt/ and this http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/lambert-victim-of-his-own-spin/
Many of the points in Pinker's new reply are actually very minor. I also noticed you didn't mention the other study I gave you. Anyway, here are 800 more peer reviewed papers for you to look at http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Adam - Kramm's rebuttal you offered is nonsense. Smith clearly took care to define an effective emissivity. And many people have called Kramm out on this.
As for your list of 200 papers - my favourites are
An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers
This was written by Steel industry consultant John Stubbles and published in Iron & Steel Technology
I also like the long roll call of Energy and Environment publications including this gem;
Do Facts Matter Anymore?
Written by Pat Michaels.
The list even manages to slip in a few stories by Indur M. Goklany a technology policy analyst who is an electrical engineer.
Just to be clear though I'm criticising the list and what it claims are peer reviewed publications on climate - not the people on the list.
In any event I don't want to continue with a I'll-see-you-your-paper-and-raise-you-this-paper type of conversation.
ASpectrum, I warned Denis that this would attract the calibre of the 'cut & paste' polemicist, complete with multiple posts and endless links and verbiage .
Ist -you show an IPCC graph based on computer models (mate you must be their last defender)
2nd- Arthur Smiths work as proof - please. I don't have to bore myself even arguing. Thats your job it's my challenge and did you happen to notice the 'empirical' and 'conclusive' not theoretical per chance.
3rdly- this is a gem, so typical warmest 'Newspeak'.
You state, "None of the warming we are experiencing can be replicated in computer models by natural variation."
Comic at best and hardly surprising as computer models cant even model past climate successfully.
(Haven't you noticed how your lords and masters never refer to them anymore? It's an embarrassment thing.)
Your attempt to downgrade the challenge as bravado
is typical of one who says he possesses 'fact' but can show none.
You fear 'conclusive' ? Incredible !
If the science is so settled then you should DEMAND it be conclusive but it's not science is it, it's the politics of petite bourgeoisie need.
So please save your theory for your armchair activist sites, it's really boring, I have had to listen to this dredge for years, thats why i'm doing this ! So as I said before put up your claim or shut up.
It's a free world but I would prefer you save the argument of the minutia for other forums.
Does anyone here who does not believe in man-made global warming also not believe that it is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind? If so I would be curious as to your reason(s). (Second greatest, something else...?)
Gee Peter, what a good solid response .
You really showcase your critical thinking.
Aspectrum, first of all, it was 800 papers, not 200 papers. And Energy and Environment is a peer reviewed journal http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html and Iron and steel technology is a peer reviewed journal http://www.aist.org/magazine/about.htm
Aspectrum if you had actually looked at the list you'll see that a lot of the papers thee are actually published in major journals like 'Geophysical Research Letters'
And Celeste, maybe you should ask these 700 scientists what they think http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
Adam , you deftly highlight the problem anti-climate change lobbyists face - no knowledge and little relevant support.
Inhofe's list is padded with the likes of TV weathermen, Economists and dead guys (Fred Seitz, Marcel Leroux, Reid Bryson ...). I'll warrant there are less than a dozen on the list with any active link to climate science.
And just so you can have a good laugh I'll quote from the entry on the list of Field Geologist Louis A.G. Hissink (at the time working on the ore-reserve feasibility study of the Koongie Park Base Metals project in Western Australia)
Hissink told EPW on January 21, 2008. "The global mean temperature derivations from the surface meteorological stations confuse the thermal state of the measuring instruments with unspecified volumes of air nor are those temperatures linked to any discrete physical object; in geostatistics this is known as a data set lacking sample support and no more a metric of the earth's thermal state as the mean calculated from the telephone numbers of the meteorological stations producing the temperature readings," Hissink explained. "Recent discoveries by NASA in the area of space exploration show that the earth is connected to the sun electromagnetically where tens of millions of amperes of electric current are routinely measured during polar aurora displays by satellites - this enormous source of energy, and thus heat, is completely ignored as a factor affecting the earth's thermal balance in global climate models. It is this electromagnetic connection that underpins the solar factor that modulates the earth's climate," Hissink added.
OK, that's enough.
Can we now stop the ASpectrum peer reviewed articles battle.
I think the points have been made.
Submissions please or leave or make a NEW point.
The AGW conspiracy began in an insignificant way in the 1850s when John Tyndall began fabricating data that CO2 warmed when infrared was passed into it. Svante Arrhenius took this a step further by claiming in 1896 that the world would get 5 degrees hotter with twice the CO2.
But it's not a conspiracy that impacts ordinary people until the government is involved. This happened when Congress formed the IPCC in 1988, ostensibly to gain control over CO2 but in reality over the world. The George C. Marshall Institute saw through this little scheme and blew the whistle on the IPCC by finding and reporting incontrovertible evidence that the IPCC leadership, in particular Ben Santer, was basing its conclusions on clearly falsified data. The Marshall Institute's widely disseminated report forced Congress to show its hand, which it chose to do by declaring the IPCC commission in general and Ben Santer in particular free of all wrong-doing, contrary to the Institute's incontrovertible evidence of falsification of the data.
From that point onwards there could be no further doubt. A global conspiracy was being orchestrated by the US government in the name of protecting the environment from the people (all politically motivated movements claim to be for protection of someone or something). Ben Santer's 2009 email to Phil Jones threatening to "beat the crap out of" Pat Michaels goes on to say "your work mattered in the 1980s." This shows that the conspiracy is approaching its third decade if not much more.
I am assuming that all of you here that do not accept the theory of man-made global warming, which seems to be the majority, can see plainly that there is a massive conspiracy. If you are in any doubt about this please speak up. It is important that those standing up against this conspiracy speak with one voice on the matter.
I will also ask the same question of the 700 scientists Aspectrum mentioned just as soon as I locate their blog(s). The AGW conspiracy claims unity of opinion as a rationale for its cause. Those groups fighting the conspiracy must stick together, for without comparable unity they will lose. In particular the 700 scientists cannot be against the theory of global warming without also acknowledging and opposing the conspiracy, they must make their commitment plain.
The incoming freshmen in Congress also must speak with one voice. Half of them say they deny global warming, but they need to make clear that they understand the full scope of the huge conspiracy they're up against or it will absorb them. Unless they commit themselves the fresh blood in Congress will go the way of all those who have entered its doors and have been bitten by the conspiracy vampire.
Near as I can tell, the conclusive argument you're looking for boils down to the following premises, each of them testable by direct appeal to physical evidence:
1) CO2 absorbs and scatters long-wave radiation in the wavelengths emitted by Earth, impeding its escape to space and contributing to the natural "greenhouse effect" whereby Earth's mean surface temperature averages roughly 33°C higher than at the level of the atmosphere where outgoing long-wave radiation balances incoming short-wave radiation from the sun (if you want to know what Earth's temperature would be without the atmospheric greenhouse effect, look at the Moon);
2) atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen sharply (by over a third) since humans began large-scale industrial burning of fossil fuels, ca. 1750 (current levels of about 388 ppmv compare with fairly stable levels of between 180 ppmv and 280 ppmv characterizing past glacial and interglacial periods, respectively);
(By themselves, these two empirically-based premises imply that, other things being equal, planetary temperatures should rise over time, and were in fact what motivated concern over possible global warming several decades before actual evidence of warming emerged from the "noise" of natural variability in measured mean global temperatures.)
3) global mean temperatures have indeed followed a rising trend since 1880 (the beginning of relatively widespread instrumental records); particularly since 1970, there is no observed natural driver, or observed combination of drivers, that can account for the phenomenon, and computer models based on the known physics of the Earth system can account for both the observed trends and patterns of warming, on global and regional scales, only when CO2 emissions are included in the mix of model inputs; and
4) isotopic studies and other evidence indicates that the most prominent source of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1750 has been the human combustion of fossil fuels, rather than some shift in natural sources and/or sinks.
In my view, this is the AGW argument in a nutshell, and while there is plenty of room for disagreement (as in all science) as details are filled in or related evidence accumulates from ancient proxies, current observations and improvements in modeling and future-scenarios definition, AGW remains by far the strongest hypothesis explaining Earth's recent climate unless and until some fatal flaw is found in one or more of these four basic pillars.
Regarding your challenge, then, there are two questions to be answered: 1) do these premises, if scientifically JUSTIFIED, support the conclusion that "increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming"? and 2) are they scientifically justified? (Notice, I do not say TRUE, since empirical science cannot provide ultimate truth - only confidence based on a rational examination of all relevant empirical evidence.)
Well then. Are you prepared to answer the first question "Yes" (thereby submitting to the rule of logic), and to present the second question to arbitration, in a COURT OF LAW with formal rules of evidence and the right of cross-examination? (No offence intended to Denis or to anyone else: the need for formal arbitration, in both the legal and scientific worlds, simply reflects a recognition of the human mind's aptitude for fooling itself.)
Hugh McLean
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Hugh,
thank you, your civility it speaks highly.
Over the years the trend has been to attack the 'man not the ball'.
Again thanks.
To answer your question, a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer for this is simplistic and does not answer this question in truth, only rhetoric.
But you ask am I wiling to go to court, of course I am, I would lay huge money on walking away with a victory!
As a layman I will try to answer by 'common sense'.
The whole question of mankind's release of natures CO2 that then drives climate warming is to me one of, how much extra heat is generated
by throwing a twig into a bonfire?
Firstly the theory of how much heat is delayed from escaping into space, is still that in degrees but what is known is that water not CO2 is the main player, in both humidity and cloud cover.
A night spent freezing in a cloudless and low humidity desert that was roasting during the day as opposed to a night sweating in the tropics with or without cloud will easily highlight that.
Your second point is an assumption,the increase in CO2 is using IPCC 'approved' measurements, of the top of my head approximately 80% of records were not used and most of these show higher concentrations. But assuming the IPCC is correct, why do you assume that mans emissions of a trace gas CO2 is the 'DRIVER' of warming.
To illustrate, I can light an 'eternal' candle in a huge room and it will heat the air around it but will never change the temperature of that room.
Then add to that a fireplace burning and a huge swimming pool of warm water, heat through the walls and a myriad of adjoining rooms with draught's and open doors, including a couple of refrigerated ones.
You also assume that the increase is entirely due to man, when in the past CO2 increase are assumed to be from ocean out gassing.
Your 3rd point is the old 'correlation = causation' yet that fails when you look at the temperature record. Most warming was in the first half of the century, then cooled after WW2 till the 1970s when if your contention were true, temperatures should have risen. Then warming till the mid 90's, then stable since, yet we keep pumping in more Co2. Can you explain this?
The assumption of not knowing natural drivers is dependent on who you speak to.
In light of the fact that we know very little about climate and what drives it, I am amused that scientific ignorance is used to prove a point.
Also the ignoring of the factual correlation between the modern temperature record and the ending of the Dalton minimum (possibly the coldest point in 10,000 years) in this debate is equally astounding.
If it didn't rise, we REALLY would be in a climate crisis.
Historically this slight modern warming is not unusual in either size or period.
For all life's sake, warming is a GOOD thing! Before it was politicized, warming periods were know as "Optimums". (A warmer world is better for all humanity and bio-diversity.)
This fascinates me, alarm at the ordinary and begs the question, what is the temperature supposed to be doing ?
Surely those who 'know' that we are the driver should 'know' what the temperature should be ?
Can you answer these questions?
Your forth point is in dispute the 'C14' chestnut.
What is no longer in dispute is the relatively short time of the atmospheric component of the carbon sequestration cycle.
Part 2 continued.
part 2
Your 3rd point is the old 'correlation = causation' yet that fails when you look at the temperature record. Most warming was in the first half of the century, then cooled after WW2 till the 1970s when if your contention were true, temperatures should have risen. Then warming till the mid 90's, then stable since, yet we keep pumping in more Co2. Can you explain this?
The assumption of not knowing natural drivers is dependent on who you speak to.
In light of the fact that we know very little about climate and what drives it, I am amused that scientific ignorance is used to prove a point.
Also the ignoring of the factual correlation between the modern temperature record and the ending of the Dalton minimum (possibly the coldest point in 10,000 years) in this debate is equally astounding.
If it didn't rise, we REALLY would be in a climate crisis.
Historically this slight modern warming is not unusual in either size or period.
For all life's sake, warming is a GOOD thing! Before it was politicized, warming periods were know as "Optimums". (A warmer world is better for all humanity and bio-diversity.)
This fascinates me, alarm at the ordinary and begs the question, what is the temperature supposed to be doing ?
Surely those who 'know' that we are the driver should 'know' what the temperature should be ?
Can you answer these questions?
Your forth point is in dispute the 'C14' chestnut.
What is no longer in dispute is the relatively short time of the atmospheric component of the carbon sequestration cycle.
I always ask this, if oceans hold as much heat in their first 2.6 meters as all of atmosphere, why do we assume atmosphere drives warming?
Oceans contain magnitudes more heat than atmosphere.
The AGW hypothesis then does not assumes CO2 drives climate, at a measly 380 parts PER MILLION other parts but that mankind's contribution, which ranges from 4% (15ppm) to the unlikely ALL of increase of 100 ppm DOES ! Incredible!
So that's between 1.5 to 10 parts per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND other parts or 0.15 parts to 1 part per TEN THOUSAND other parts, driving a vast, chaotic climate system !
Maybe you can answer how this benign microbe on the back of a flea, that sits on the back of an elephant, controls the elephant.
Hugh, I hope that explains some of my incredulity of the AGW HYPOTHESIS !
Peter, About your response to Hugh:
To begin with don't address Hugh's question;
1) do these premises, if scientifically JUSTIFIED, support the conclusion that "increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming"?
Although you say you are a "layman" and will "try to answer by 'common sense'" this is not what you asked in your challenge.
For reasons of space I though I'd try to respond to one of your points but even isolating one point it is almost impossible to make sense of what you are saying. Nevertheless, below, in italics, are a couple of your points followed by my observations;
I always ask this, if oceans hold as much heat in their first 2.6 meters as all of atmosphere, why do we assume atmosphere drives warming?
Because simple physics says if the oceans were driving the warming they would have to cool as they transfered heat to the atmosphere but the oceans are warming.
at a measly 380 parts PER MILLION
Stratospheric ozone has peak concentrations of a measly 8 ppm.
driving a vast, chaotic climate system !
Weather is chaotic like an initial value problem in mathematics; climate is like a boundary value problem.
Your forth point is in dispute the 'C14' chestnut
Do you mean the C13/C12 ratio?
"Inhofe's list is padded with the likes of TV weathermen, Economists and dead guys (Fred Seitz, Marcel Leroux, Reid Bryson ...). I'll warrant there are less than a dozen on the list with any active link to climate science."
Did you actually read the list I gave you or are you just repeating what you have read off climate alarmist websites?
Aspectrum read this http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_mq.pdf
Anyway here are some videos I think every warmist should see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNXv6IUhC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuj_tlRRQdQ
@Hugh McLean,
Hello Hugh,
I'd like to start with your first point:
"1) CO2 absorbs and scatters long-wave radiation in the wavelengths emitted by Earth, impeding its escape to space and contributing to the natural "greenhouse effect" whereby Earth's mean surface temperature averages roughly 33°C higher than at the level of the atmosphere where outgoing long-wave radiation balances incoming short-wave radiation from the sun (if you want to know what Earth's temperature would be without the atmospheric greenhouse effect, look at the Moon);"
your 1-a: "CO2 absorbs and scatters long-wave radiation in the wavelengths emitted by Earth, impeding its escape to space"
I agree with this statement, up to this point in the sentence.
your 1-b: "and contributing to the natural "greenhouse effect" whereby Earth's mean surface temperature averages roughly 33°C higher than at the level of the atmosphere where outgoing long-wave radiation balances incoming short-wave radiation from the sun (if you want to know what Earth's temperature would be without the atmospheric greenhouse effect, look at the Moon);"
1-b is highly tenuous and not established or demonstrated in my opinion.
As you can see from the above exchanges, the theoretical mechanism of an alleged planetary-atmosphere-based greenhouse effect is hotly debated by experts, not to mention that it's reality cannot be inferred from empirical facts.
While it is true that the Moon does not have an atmosphere it is also true that the hard surfaces (below any gas atmosphere) of the Earth and Moon have dramatically different albedos.
The albedo, in turn, is a dominant parameter in calculating a planet's surface temperature for a given incident solar radiation.
This does not even address the aspect that the CO2 in question is a trace gas and that its possible impacts on dominant greenhouse effect gases (H2O), depending on a multitude of changing and inhomogeneous circumstances, is unknown.
To the extent that you need your point-1, your submission is rejected until these deficiencies are addressed.
Denis - can you clarify your comments for me?
You agree (1-a) that atmospheric CO2 absorbs and scatters LV radiation.
In other words it is a greenhouse gas.
Yet you claim (1-b) that its not established that a greenhouse gas contributes to the greenhouse effect?
What about satellite measurements that show less LV radiation escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths and more returning to Earth at the same wavelenghts?
You also claim that an "alleged...greenhouse effect is hotly debated by experts". Outside of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's paper which we've already commented on I have not seen any paper on this - I politely submit you may be exaggerating.
On your last point - The amount of H2O vapour in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature. Higher temperature, more water vapour. So not only is H2O vapour the dominant greenhouse gas but a positive feedback. If anything this highlights the climates sensitivity to increases in CO2. See this paper.
@ASpectrum,
The existence of an Earth atmosphere-based planetary greenhouse effect has not been demonstrated from empirical evidence and its theoretical foundation is both in question and based on suspect simplifying assumptions.
Molecules that scatter strongly in the infra-red are said to be greenhouse effect molecules. This biased nomenclature does not prove the existence of a planetary atmosphere-based greenhouse effect.
Many planetary and cosmic processes can affect water vapor and clouds (and precipitation and aerosols and albedo etc.) and these effects can easily drown out any direct or indirect effect from a trace gas.
The paper you quote on H2O is only a paper that reviews an array of expressed proposals, arguments, and opinions regarding the arbitrary CO2-to-H2O "amplification factor" used in climate models.
Please try to stick to the criteria of the proposed Climate Challenge.
Peter Laux is to be commended for not making the mistake of choosing a member of the conspiracy to judge entries. Had he done so his $10,000 would be at the mercy of the opinion of a conspirator, and we all know what their opinion is.
I believe Denis Rancourt to be as capable of dealing with any argument of the conspirators as he has shown himself to be with Hugh McLean's confusion about the part the professor labeled 1-b. Expertly done, Denis, I found your logic on that point to be impeccable. Mr Laux's money is in expert hands, good choice Peter.
Denis - I hope his question is sticking to the topic of the challenge - as you ask. What is your response to Hugh's question;
1) do these premises, if scientifically JUSTIFIED, support the conclusion that "increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming"?
And as he asks,
Are you prepared to answer..."Yes" (thereby submitting to the rule of logic)
@Celeste,
I'm not a judge. Peter decides. Peter is the one going to court over this.
I'm only giving my feedback to draw out the best possible submissions.
A candidate who believes Peter to be unreasonable in rejecting a valid entry has legal recourse.
If I see a valid entry I will tell Peter and tell you all my position and I will tell the court if asked.
So Denis, Peter decides
Uh huh.
So Peter, with no training in this area, will just go, "ooh you got me there, great explanation, you win, here's my money" ?
It is all very well to say one can take legal recourse but who on earth will have the time or the inclination and under what jurisdiction and at what cost (>10k I'll guess) to take this course of action?
And you say, I'm not a judge but you also say to Hugh, your submission is rejected because, well, you judged his first point.
Denis - In respect of your claim,
The existence of an Earth atmosphere-based planetary greenhouse effect has not been demonstrated from empirical evidence
I submit this and note part of its conclusion,
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming
@Hugh,
(via prompting by ASpectrum)
You ask: "Regarding your challenge, then, there are two questions to be answered: 1) do these premises, if scientifically JUSTIFIED, support the conclusion that "increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming"? and 2) are they scientifically justified? ... Are you prepared to answer the first question "Yes" (thereby submitting to the rule of logic) ...?"
Your "four pillars" contain fatal flaws.
If the four pillars did not contain fatal logical and factual flaws and were based on empirical facts, then YES they would "support the conclusion" but "support" is not enough. They must be part of a stated conclusive argument.
Let's set some ground rules, by Global Warming we mean the average air temperature near the surface, and not the distribution. In other words it's possible to cherry pick individual readings and either emphasise of downplay any effect.
The problem is that the atmosphere and the planet interact with each other, however to begin with we'll deal with how you estimate the total energy in a ball of gas, warmed by a sun.
To do that you calculate the total power impacting on the surface of the ball, and being radiated back. The remainder is passing through, and either does so directly, or is absorbed and either kept or re-transmitted. However given the scientific properties of the gasses in question and the densities you can calculate the average time taken for the power to pass through the ball. If you know the power in, and the power out, and have that estimate of time you can calculate the energy contained and from that the temperature of the ball. The essential concept here is that when you introduce matter in the path of a radiating power source it can either be deflected, absorbed, unaffected, or slowed.
If you stick a ball of solid matter in the middle things become interesting, since that also heats and as far as the atmosphere is concerned it acts a second energy source, with the added complication that heat can be transferred both ways. As with most things in science the one method is to start from an equilibrium point and change a variable. In this case we postulate an increase in the CO2 levels. If that happens then more of the radiation from the earth is slowed on it's way out, and so the total energy in the atmosphere goes up. There may be a minimal change in the specific heat of the atmosphere, due to replacing oxygen with water an CO2, but the main change has been that the atmosphere is now more efficient at absorbing energy from the planet. Hence the temperature of the atmosphere goes up.
There are knock on effects, some of the energy absorbed is passed back into the planet. The warmer air will be more humid. Warmer oceans start to melt polar ice, and that's where it gets interesting, because at that point light from the sun which would otherwise be reflected back into the atmosphere is absorbed by the planet instead.
The point though is that the only thing we changed was the level of CO2, the rest was a consequence of that catalyst.
It can be shown that the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning by analysing the radiation levels. It can also be shown that there is an increase in oceanic CO2 levels so the increase is not due to sea temperatures increasing.
What cannot be predicted with certainty is how the global temperatures will be distributed, or even how fast the ice will melt. There is no certainty of anything other than,
burning fossil fuels promotes global warming.
And you don't need to use black body equations to show it.
"You agree (1-a) that atmospheric CO2 absorbs and scatters LV radiation.
In other words it is a greenhouse gas.
Yet you claim (1-b) that its not established that a greenhouse gas contributes to the greenhouse effect? "
Aspectrum I think that this article sums that argument up best http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/the-fundamental-logic-flaw-of-climate-science-groupies/
Anonymous, "The point though is that the only thing we changed was the level of CO2, the rest was a consequence of that catalyst.
It can be shown that the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning by analysing the radiation levels."
This extraordinary lack of humility is what warns me of very poor science, it appears more to be the assumptions of an 'original sin/guilt religion !
You assume that what 'we change' causes warming and that our CO2 is the 'only' thing.
THE ONLY THING ? Says who ? That uses ignorance as certainty ?
How did the earth ever change without us and how will it ever survive without the white western middle-classes. God help us when the overdue ice-age arrives, it will certainly be our fault.
As for your second statement, BLOODY WELL show it!
Mary, Joseph and Jesus ! Thats what this is about, I don't care for opinion. Submit a challenge !
Aspectrum, you use ozone as an example - thats comparing an apple to a frog.
I ask how a few parts PER MILLION - DRIVE a huge, vast, chaotic planetary climate system !
This system uses forces so powerful that they can destroy millions of lives and denude millions of square miles of land or even destroy life on the planet and you think a few molecules of CO2 dominates this ?
Perhaps to just cut to the chase and forget theory, how about the minor warming alarmists show a historical evidence that increasing CO2 drives warming and decreasing CO2 precipitates cooling?
Aspectrum, you constantly whine in regard to the challenge - surely proving this should be a simple task for a master of this 'settled' science?
Haven't you got what it takes ? As you point out, I like Al Bore have no training in this area, so it should not be too difficult.
You state, "So Peter, with no training in this area, will just go, "ooh you got me there, great explanation, you win, here's my money" ?
I will use Denis's opinion - I don't care if that satisfies you, it satisfies me.
I have a reputation to uphold and it's an honest one and my enemies in the Union movement would forever use it as a club to beat me.
Stop making excuses, stop arguing and submit your challenge.
Aspectrum, you use ozone as an example - thats comparing an apple to a frog.
I ask how a few parts PER MILLION - DRIVE a huge, vast, chaotic planetary climate system !
This system uses forces so powerful that they can destroy millions of lives and denude millions of square miles of land or even destroy life on the planet and you think a few molecules of CO2 dominates this ?
Show me how these forces are overridden ?
Surely you MUST know?
Perhaps to just cut to the chase and forget theory, how about the minor warming alarmists show a historical evidence that increasing CO2 drives warming and decreasing CO2 precipitates cooling?
That might be simpler.
Aspectrum, you constantly whine in regard to the challenge - surely proving this should be a simple task for a master of this 'settled' science?
Haven't you got what it takes ? As you point out, I like Al Bore have no training in this area, so it should not be too difficult.
You state, "So Peter, with no training in this area, will just go, "ooh you got me there, great explanation, you win, here's my money" ?
I will use Denis's opinion - I don't care if that satisfies you, it satisfies me.
I have a reputation to uphold and it's an honest one and my enemies in the Union movement would forever use it as a club to beat me.
I don't lead with the chin.
Stop making excuses, stop arguing and submit your challenge.
Peter - my submission;
I posted this paper in an earlier comment of mine.
I now submit it as my answer to your challenge.
From it I note the following;
These measurements show that the
greenhouse effect from trace gases in the atmosphere is real and adds significantly to the radiative burden of the atmosphere. The
greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times.
And;
The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
Peter, funnily enough, the author Dr. Wayne Evans was a professor at Trent University - 4 hours down the road from Denis's old employee.
I am open to forwarding any comment on this paper to the authors.
OK ASpectrum,
Now you need to fully identify yourself for your submission to be entered and responded to.
Name, City, Country.
As per the stated rules.
This one from Adam seems to have been lost in Blogger?
Adam has left a new comment on your post "$10K Climate Challenge":
Aspectrum, if the AGW theory was true it would mean the troppopshere would be warming significantly and rapidly, but it's not
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/the-models-are-wrong-but-only-by-400/
This fact alone disproves the theory that greenhouse gases are warming our Earth.
I also think you should read this
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
Your article isn't mentioned, but it pretty much refers to the same thing.
Adam says,
if the AGW theory was true it would mean the troppopshere(sic) would be warming...
It is.
Here is a graph that plots global lower tropospheric temperature anomalies relative to 1979 from HadAT2, IUK, RAOBCORE, RATPAC, RICH, RSS and UAH.
You can also plot any of the following;
Land Surface Air Temperature
Sea-surface Temperature
Marine Air Temperature
Sea Level
NH (March-April) Snow Cover
Ocean Heat Content (0-700m)
Specific Humidity
Stratospheric Temperature
September Arctic Sea-Ice Extent
Glacier Mass Balance
All of these indicators are moving in ways that are consistent with a warming planet.
And for Denis,
Andrew Hoskins
Sydney
Australia
Aspectrum you have just shown that I am entirely righti. Your own graph has shown that the troposphere is warming at the same rate as the surface. If the AGW theory was true it would mean that the troposphere would be warming at several times the surface rate. In your own comment, you have inadvertently admitted the AGW is wrong.
And Aspectrum I suggest that you really read that AGW smoking gun article that I gave you. It showed how some AGW papers seemed to give empiracal evidence, but when you actually check the paper, the evidence it provides is actually very weak.
Adam - you've been duped.
Thompson says in his AGW "smoking gun" article,
It should be noted that the authors of the three of cited papers never reached the same conclusions that are being stated in this article. The authors of the cited papers either reached the opposite conclusion (OLR has decreased) or made conclusions about how the observations compared to models...(The) claim that there has not been conclusive evidence of a reduction of OLR that is absorbed by CO2 over the period from 1970 to 2006 is unique to this article and should not be confused with the conclusions reached by the authors in their cited papers
Thompson's unique conclusion is based on eyeballing a few graphs not analysing any data. You may want to review who's evidence you think is weak.
Also Adam you claim,
If the AGW theory was true it would mean that the troposphere would be warming at several times the surface rate
Wrong. You may be referring to the rate of warming models produce in the tropical troposphere. You can read a little about this from climate scientist here
@Andrew Hoskins, Sydney, Australia (aka ASpectrum)
Re: Feedback on your submission to the Climate Challenge
Your submission is the extended abstract conference paper of Evans and Puckrin (2006).
You failed to recognize that conference paper abstracts are typically submitted (partly as an advertisement) long before the start of the conference and before the actual conference paper is written and submitted, as a forecast of what the authors plan to present at the conference. These abstracts are published separately from the "extended abstract papers" in an abstract book available to conference participants upon registration. The bare abstract is a separate document from the paper and too often is an overly optimistic projection, as is clearly the case here.
Indeed, the abstract that you quote in its entirety
"The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C ... This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
is in this case unrelated to the paper itself which certainly does not achieve these lofty goals.
The paper itself is a pathetic example of scientists exploiting a popular dominant opinion rather than consciously using the scientific method.
It contains more methodological and logical errors than one can shake a stick at.
Just to mention one glaring examples:
Table 3a shows the dominant downward flux from H2O as DECREASING by 20 or more W/m2 since the pre-industrial reported value. This decrease is more than 5 times greater in magnitude than the reported increase from all other greenhouse active gases (Table 4). H2O is not reported in Table 4 and "has not been included since it is a part of the natural climate feedback" (I'm not making this up).
The bold claims of the original abstract are mostly not repeated and are in no way supported in the paper itself.
The paper's conclusion section has the ad hoc phrase "our measurements show that the downward surface flux from H2O has doubled to 200 W/m2" without any explanation and without any supporting evidence in the main body of the paper. Quite remarkable really.
Congratulations Mr. Hoskins, you have found a particularly bad scientific paper making remarkably rash and arbitrary statements.
Ah the mesmerizing power of a fast Fourier transform IR emission spectrum... (and I won't even mention the experimental errors).
Given the annoyance factor in your overtly poor submission, we reserve the right to not respond with feedback to any further submissions that you may make.
Hi Denis,
When Evans' paper says the downward surface flux from H2O has doubled to 200W/m2 you claim that this is without any explanation and without any supporting evidence in the main body of the paper
You may have overlooked that this is a comparison between measured winter and summer downward surface fluxes, is discussed at the top of page 5 and is found by comparing table 3b to 3a.
Additionally, your comment that begins with just to mention one glaring examples (sic), may have misinterpreted forcing and feedback and the effect of water on the fluxes of the other greenhouse
gases.
Your further claims that Evans' paper,
is a pathetic example of scientists exploiting a popular dominant opinion
contains more methodological and logical errors than one can shake a stick at
(is) a particularly bad scientific paper making remarkably rash and arbitrary statements
are all just verballing.
I stand by my submission.
Furthermore, I extend my submission to include the two papers I noted in my last comment(Harries 2001, Griggs 2004)
I look forward to hearing from Peter.
@ASpectrum,
You are correct about the 200 W/m2 for H2O. It is an irrelevant and useless concluding comment about a difference between dry winter air and humid summer air, not a difference between pre-industrial and industrial values as I mistakenly interpreted it.
Indeed, there is nothing of use in the paper that would substantively relate to the question at hand.
Think you are stating that you "stand by" authors' unsubstantiated claims that you agree with. Fine.
Aspectum, I don't think you actually read that article I gave you. It explains how their data was invalid:
"All three of the links referenced here devote the latter sections of the papers to removing the impact of surface temperatures and water vapor and graphing the OLR that is associated only with trace GHGs. The authors perform this trick (there is that word again...) based on the climate models and not through actual measurements, and surprise, surprise -- these simulated results show a reduction in OLR emission with wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2. Computer-simulated results based on climate models are never a replacement for actual measured data, and they should never be used to draw conclusions when actual measured data contradicts those models."
And as the article says,a paper by Lindzen and Choi, which directly measured the radiation and made no adjustments to their data, found that the outgoing radiation increased and not decreased. http://www.mit.edu/%7Eysc/index.files/Lindzen&Choi2009GRL.pdf
And before you say it, I know the paper's been crritisized, but Lindzen and Choi rewrote and corrected their paper in 2010, but it still doesn't change any of their results http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf
And Aspectrum Real Climate is not a reliable source of information. It os run by all the scientists involved in the climategate scandal and it doesn't allow any comments through that aren't to do with AGW. I think you should read this http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html and this http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1742/Climatologist-slams-RealClimateorg-for-erroneously-communicating-the-reality-of-the-how-climate-system-is-actually-behaving--Rebuts-Myths-On-Sea-Level-Oceans-and-Arctic-Ice
And Aspecrum Harries's paper was one of the papers which that article refuted.
It's been several days since Aspectrum, or anyone has commented on this post. I don't think he's going to comment again and I don't think anyone else is going to participate. So, Mr Rancourt and Mr Laux, is that it for the challenge then?
Hi Adam, i have been on holiday, I was going to use Lindzen as a rebuttal to the challenge but you beat me to it, I sent a post through but it may have been too long.
Lindzen gets attacked when he uses real data but these other clowns get applause when they use 'computer models' !!!!
It's amazing isn't it for such alleged "settled science" that someone cant pick up $10k.
It does expose the lack of substance to the disproved AGW hypothesis.
As for the challenge, its stands, though I put the pressure on by setting a time limit of only 20 years.
It has been very handy to pressure the AGW faithful with and I know of some kids who are using it as a 'counter' in their school assignments, which are AGW alarmist based.
Smack the teacher !
For starters I see five bands of AGW held hypothesis:
DAGW - Dangerous - 3c rise o 100yrs
AGW - 1.2c o 100yrs
MAGW - Mild - .5 to 1c o 100yrs
MAGW are Carter/Evans/Spencer/Lindzen/Christy to name a few.
The above believe the AGW hypothesis but very mild effects on temperature will eventuate. This this effect will be supported by all the above. Some of mildests think that natural effects of climate equilibriums will be highly negative not positive climate sensitivity. Very few believe based on the greenhouse gas - CO2 in extra concentrations does not effect climate.
If any here wish to disprove AGW then you going to have challenge all of the scientists that it does not exist at all. None, zilch and not at all.
I am certain of one thing - get them and ask them.
This then does prove AGW is an established law of physics science. They will tell weaker temperature rises does prove its non-existence - all it proves is that if you deny the science - that is what you choose to me.
The best evidence is ask them as witnesses.
Any paper by Lindzen does not DISPROVE AGW - it proves it. While he is a mildest on climate sensitivity - PROVEN within his papers is the CO2 greenhouse effect already. Thereby the bet is won on the terms. Lindzen and Choi's paper believe it or not actually does show the greenhouse effect of CO2 measured. Yes the results are mild but it shows its trace of evidence.
You should have qualified the bet way better then this. It should be worded as follows:
Prove me to that Dangerous AGW hypothesis is correct based by scientific evidence.
I don't care whether I have won. It is not up me to prove one single argument. If you go to Evans, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy or Carter and ask them.
Suggest you get them on Video Conference yourself and see whether you lost your $10,000.
Ross
Please note that anonymous questions and comments are generally not posted. Please identify yourselves and keep it constructive. Also, posts meant primarily as personal jabs or insults are blocked.
Digitalwise the Anthropogenic global warming theory that Peter Laux is offering $10K for empirical evidence for, is:
1. That the warming that occured throughout the 20th century was because of man made CO2.
2. And that CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas that is going to cause a lot of warming.
That is what he means when he is reeferring to AGW and that is what the challenge is about.
Look, digitalwise CO2 much have some warming effect, although it must be very slight because CO2 never shows any good link to temperature ever. For the past 10 years the planet has not warmed despite increases in CO2. And from 1940 to 1970 temperatures fell, when CO2 was at record levels. And throughout the past 600 million years CO2 was ten to twenty times higher than today. According to the greenhouse theory the Earth should have been exceedingly hot, but it wasn't.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
This shows the overwhelming dominance of natural climate change over anything carbon dioxide.
And, yes as L&C's study has shown if CO2 levels were to double it would raise temperatures by 0.5 degrees celscius. But this does not neccessarily mean that temperatures in 100 years would be 0.5 degrees higher than today. CO2 does cause some warming, but often it is overwhlemed by natural climate change, like changes in the sun.
I suggest that you read this. It explains the skeptic side and is written by a scientist.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_change_cause.pdf
Diditalwise, you state - "If any here wish to disprove AGW then you going to have challenge all of the scientists that it does not exist at all. None, zilch and not at all."
I don't have to at all, none, zilch as AGW is a hypothesis not a fact, its up to those who claim the hypothesis to show it to be true, not the other way around.
As Denis already has stated that may prove difficult, as the Vostock and Nth Greenland ice-cores show that warming proceeds CO2 increase, so it would be difficult to show that the trace amount of CO2 let alone mankind's puny portion can drive a vast atmospheric climate system with its powerful drivers, and history as we know it would first need to be altered.
Though CO2 may have a slight effect, asking Mankind's emissions to drive warming would be like trying to power a super tanker with the motor of a model car.
And as for you telling how to run the challenge and who to 'videolink' with, I don't need another mother but thanks for the offer - and don't expect a cheque for an opinion.
Mr laux, you said on an earlier comment
"but that mankind's contribution, which ranges from 4% (15ppm)"
and just now
"CO2 let alone mankind's puny portion"
Now I'd just like to reaffirm the fact that I am indeed a skeptic (in fact former AGW believer), but there are some arguments that I don't agree with, as I explained to another skeptic here
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7977-ashmir-gets-seasons-first-snowfall-early-winter-chill#comment-12328
Adam, mankind's portion is puny.
CO2 in total is no more than a trace gas.
In isolation it SOUNDS large, that is the point of their propaganda, to turn a "Gnat into Godzilla".
I believe its the IPCC who state 4% is anthropogenic,
I could be wrong but it doesn't matter as I always go to the hyperbolic extreme of the AGW hysterics to include ALL of the CO2 increase since 1850 to make my point, so as not to be sidetracked in debating the C12, C13 hypothesis. (which I believe is debunked in the just released book, "Slaying the Sky Dragon").
So I give them the WHOLE increase to highlight the sheer absurdity of AGW.
To illustrate, if 1850 was 288 parts per million,
(which is also debatable) and is now 385, lets round it up to 100ppm increase - it sounds ominous in isolation.
BUT …...
That equates to only TEN parts of insidious mankind's polluting CO2 per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND other parts of natures pristine gases.
Or a minute ONE PART of CO2 produced by mans "satanic mills" per TEN THOUSAND other parts.
So how does one molecule in ten thousand drive the warming of a vast climate system.
Remember the hypothesis states it DRIVES the warming, not contributes ! (though the contribution if any would be on par with a fan in a hurricane)
Better still, in the 10,000 parts, 400 are H2O, a far more powerful 'greenhouse gas' per part let alone volume.
So how does this one weak CO2 molecule get amplified to dominate the stronger and far more numerous H2O ?
So I like to "cut to the chase" to make the AGW faithful explain the miracle of AGW as they always try to obfuscate with "grand and windy" sidetracking.
Adam
Look, digitalwise CO2 much have some warming effect, although it must be very slight because CO2 never shows any good link to temperature ever. For the past 10 years the planet has not warmed despite increases in CO2.
As for my foundational approach - I say that manistream accpets that CO2 warms our planet. I then went to say that I will premise this on proper science. Any thing else like the Goddards, McIntyres, and Watts are precluded. As I said before even those of the MAGW camp would disagree with them and questionable science.
I am not going to bother with every man and his dog self created scientific opinion as refutation. I want science backed peer review papers that are foundational on this argument and could be held up in a court of law as credible witnesses. This is not an appeal to higher authorities as foundational to this debate is scientific evidence not the unqualified Goddard's of this world who have proven on a few ocassions at misreading the data.
Ross (digitalwise)replies - well we almost have the latest global tempratures in for 2010. Spencer clearly states there is no satisitcal difference to 1998. If you take the high of the 1998 - global warming has returned. This is despite evidence of a very powerful cool influence of La Nina affecting now Eastern Coastal Australia and prior the South American continent.
So by saying it has not warmed is simply misleading by plotting the two points. Many sceptics have been saying the earth is now cooling. If 2011 surpasses the 2010 global temperatures then the bet is weakened by the pure temperature argument further. The bet is on thin ice as we would expect the hypothesis that CO2 does not raise temperatures signifcantly globally.
The problem we have is linking the attribution to it. This in itself requires complex modelling of the why the higher temperatures are in evidence.
Your statement therefore is very misleading. As the temperatures did seem to pause but remained statiscally very high with 2005 just being behind the the whopping super hot El Nino that dominated the oceans at that time of 1998.
Where is all this energy (heat) coming from then? Well that's another post of attributed cause - is it not?
Ross Brisbane
Mr Laux
Let me just say that I agree with everying you said. That CO2 is only a trace gas, no evidence that it plays any major role in climate change, very little total change of the atmosphere's content, etc.
What I am saying is that mankinds emissions of CO2 is small, compared to the total amount realeased by nature. However natural CO2 has different cycles of emission and absorbtion, but man made co2 doesn't, as Roy Spencer explains
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/
"9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed “proof” of humans being the source of increasing CO2 — a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13 — would also be consistent with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level estimated to be around 270 ppm…maybe less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.
10) But Aren’t Natural CO2 Emissions About 20 Times the Human Emissions? Yes, but nature is believed to absorb CO2 at about the same rate it is produced. You can think of the reservoir of atmospheric CO2 as being like a giant container of water, with nature pumping in a steady stream into the bottom of the container (atmosphere) in some places, sucking out about the same amount in other places, and then humans causing a steady drip-drip-drip into the container."
Mr Laux natural CO2 gives it up and takes it out in perfect balance. It is part of the natural carbon cycle. Man made CO2 set in perfect balance like in nature. A lot of our CO2 emissions will stay in the atmosphere. Here is a diagram detailing natural and man made CO2 and you can see what I'm saying
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/newflowfig2.gif
Mr Laux I agree that some of the been natural. In Scafetta and West's solar paper they estimate only about 10% or 20%. 30% max.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
But like I said. I totally agree with you on all of your points. CO2 is just a life giving trace gas, so it will make hardly any difference to the natural climate systems of the Earth whether we increase it or not.
Ross Brisbane
First of all, 1998 is still hotter than 2010. The 2010 el nino was a pretty strong one, so it is not unusual that the temperature was close to 1998. Natural el nino events have got nothing to do with global warming.
"If you take the high of the 1998 - global warming has returned. This is despite evidence of a very powerful cool influence of La Nina affecting now Eastern Coastal Australia and prior the South American continent."
You do realise that the la nina is indeed starting to show in the temperature datasets.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/04/rss-global-temperature-anomaly-takes-a-dive/
"If 2011 surpasses the 2010 global temperatures then the bet is weakened by the pure temperature argument further."
I think that is very unlikely.
"Your statement therefore is very misleading."
My statement is not misleading. Global temperatures have indeed not risen since 2001 (I would have said 1998, but I have a feeling that once again you would have accused me of "cherry picking the el nino year") Many climate alarmists are now admitting that there has been no warming.
If you want I could provide you about a dozen examples.
Adam, I think Ross's arguments show how near statistically irrelevant warming has been.
You are correct, for even the exposed Phil Jones head of the thermophobic CRU stated in 2009 that there had been no statistically significant warming for 15 years.
The blindness of the AGW argument is incredible, most will discount 1998 as an El Nino event yet the irony of that never penetrates their consciousness.
The fact that the warmest year for a while was caused by oceans escapes them.
Oceans hold more heat in their first 2.6 meters than all of atmosphere.
They have a far more dominant effect on retaining and distributing heat than atmosphere.
Yet the CO2 obsessed see our small portion of a minor gas in the atmosphere as the driver of a warming climate. Not a contributor, THE DRIVER !
Science aside, reason dictates that the AGW hypothesis is risible.
The hyperbolic claim that any year is the "hottest on record" carries very little of the weight that is implied.
The "record' they refer to on our 4.6 billion year old earth is a mere 150 years old !
Coupled with the fact that the "records" start also coincided with the end of the Dalton Minimum which was the end of the mini-ice age and probably the coldest point in nearly 10,000 years when temperatures may have fallen by as much as 2 degrees in 20-30 years (and we were not to blame.)
So this warming is not only very welcome but it's hardly surprising that the earth has warmed by a staggering 0.7 of one whole degree on average + or - 0.2 of a degree, (thats a whopping 60% variable) in 150 years !
Have you ever heard a thermophobe tell you what the earths ever changing average temperature should be ?
Its all too comical for words.
What a stupid generation of fearful angst ridden control freaks we have become, it really is a "PT Barnam thing" - to sucker them in all you have to do is flagellate mankind as sinful and omnipotently destructive - its as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
Apocalypse for sin has always roped 'em in and Chicken Little cries, "The sky is falling."
Mr Laux
I was wondering if you wanted me to ask Thomas Richard of CCD
http://climatechangedispatch.com/home
if you wanted to readvertise your challenge on his website. Because nobody is really aware of this climateguy blog and only about 1 or 2 people have tried to do the challenge. And like I said I'm not sure if anyone else is going to try and do it. So if it was put on his website, then the challenge might get more publicity.
What do you think?
I totally agree for as much free and re-mixed re-posting and featuring on as many sites as possible.
The Challenge was news featured on ClimateDepot.com when it was initiated.
Get the word out.
Ta Adam, I would appreciate it and by the way its Peter.
One of the reasons as an AGW atheist that I placed this challenge is because the 'Thermophobes' will never directly face or answer the question.
It is as disturbing as talking to a guilt ridden individual who cant look you in the eye.
Its all buzz words like, 'projections' and 'fingerprints', and when exposed for lack of reason let alone science, they throw idiotic propaganda into the mix like the 'precautionary principle'.(its selective as well as being obtuse, as they travel in cars, the principle would exclude such risk !)
They of course dismiss such challenges.
At other blogs I have had self proclaimed 'left progressives' try to deride it by stating that Denis is a Marxist, Anarchist and Socialist and that he dared be sacked from a the University of Ottawa ! ( many would see that as a badge of honour !)
Any excuse not to "step up too the plate!"
Yet none try the short road by simply providing "empirical evidence."
And that is the beauty of it, they cant, this forces them to reveal AGW as belief not fact.
Though I may be too charitable by stating it a belief, AGW is an outright fraud.
I have contacted Thomas Richard and he has posted it on his website
http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/8316-10k-climate-challenge
Peter, I agree with everything you just said about AGW believers. They don't answer questions or refute arguments, they just use name calling and ad homs; the prime example being the smear campaign blog Desmogblog. They can't near to think anything wrong with their prescious AGW theory. When they are confronted with real science, they become suspicious of it, and just dismiss it. And if something supports AGW, then they just accept it, unquestionably.
Peter, have you ever heard of a climate skeptic called Lord Monckton. Well, in 2009 he gave a talk in St Paul pretty much exposing this thing as a con
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=channel
Well, this guy called John Abraham made a video, which seemed to refute every single thing that he said. This video was then passed along on every climate alarmist website imaginable.
Monckton then wrote 84 pages refuting every single thing that he said
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf
Abraham then totally surrendered and completely humiliated all of the warmists
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/
It's things like this, which pretty much shows us what the warmists are like. When they see something that supports their religion, they accept it unquestionably, but then afterwards, it comes back to bite them on the ****.
Although, there has been one exception. There's a man called John Cook who runs a website called
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
I mentioned it in my first comment.
Now, this website is an AGW propaganda website, just like Real Climate. But to the warmists they see it a a 'scientific basis' for their religious beliefs. The website is arguments from climate skeptics and what the "science" really says. Now this website supposedly provides a 'scientific rebuttal' to skeptic arguments. Now, you get a bit suspicious when reading it, because most alarmists don't answer skeptics. Lubos Motl, a real scientist, has completely debunked every single one of Cook's points.
ttp://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
His last paragraph sums up the whole website
"There exists no climate threat and there exists no empirically rooted evidence that the human impact on the climate deserves the attention of anyone except for a few excessively specialized experts who should investigate such speculative questions. All opinions that the climate change is dangerous, man-made, or even relevant for policymaking are based on the irrational attitude, cherry-picking, intimidation, censorship, and the general sloppiness of the kind that Mr Cook has shown us once again."
And here are some more rebuttals to the website
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/as-usual-john-cook-doesnt-get-it/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/an-exercise-in-just-how-clueless-they-are/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/cooks-hokey-stick/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/skeptical-science-climate-sensitivity-negative/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/skeptical-science-completely-missed-the-point/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/john-cooks-logical-flaw/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/talking-out-of-both-sides-of-the-alarmist-mouth/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/18/sea-ice-extend-answer-to-skepticalscience-com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/11/pielke-senior-misinformation-on-the-website-%E2%80%9Cskeptical-science-%E2%80%93-getting-skeptical-about-global-warming-skepticism%E2%80%9D/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/skeptical-science-john-cook-embarrassing-himself/
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/john-cooks-blog-photosynthesis-is.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/skeptics-iphone-app-endorsed-de-facto-by-critic/
And this one is not really a rebuttal, but it's something to laugh about
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/07/thanks-to-john-cook-for-boosting-the-our-climate-app/
And also read the comments on the articles I gave you.
The website is full of lies, half truths, distorted facts and outright bad science. Yet, the warmists they really can't see it. It says what they want to hear, so they just accept it unquestionably and unskeptically.
The warmists never learn: that for them, if something is to good to be true (i.e. support the AGW theory/cult) then it probably is.
And Peter, have you seen this great video summarising the global cooling scare of the 1970's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko
Happy New Year !
Another year over and not one serious attempt to collect my languid $10k.
The AGW crowd are shriller than ever and with even less science, if that were possible!
James Hansen has been insisting that this is the "hottest year in recorded history!", all 160 years worth.
A mere observation and probably wrong, yet this 'hot year' is linked by nothing more than wishful thinking to emissions of life giving CO2 and militantly denies any other cause ! (How in the 4.5 billion year history of Earths ever changing climate could it possibly warm without the demonic influence of industrialised mankind or be saved without the concern of the angst ridden western middle-classes must perplex the likes of James.)
These claims are as factual and reminiscent of the hysteria of a 13 year old watching a horror movie but nevertheless they still dominate and are winning the propaganda war. (As in reality they should be, after all they have a compliant unquestioning media backed to the hilt by their Masters, Government, Industry and Finance.)
Here is a link to a great little blog piece by a guy calling himself, 'Ishmael2009' named, "The Man who invented global warming." It was published in the UK Telegraph by James Delingpole.
Its about Sir Crispin Tickle, (no it's not a gag) an influential and typical Malthusian member of the Northern Hemisphere Establishment.
Apart from being the British ambassador to the UN and helped create the IPCC, he was adviser to the "Energy Security" obsessed Conservative British Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher who in 2004 confessed in a BBC interview " I think I persuaded Mrs Thatcher of the importance of climate change, and she took it up in a famous speech to the Royal Society in 1988."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069775/the-man-who-invented-global-warming/
and a great reference on anti-AGW consensus !
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OSGWD.htm
and to those who think AGW is some anti-Corporate, anti-Big Oil or anti-Establishment stance, have a look at the membership list and founding members of the most powerful of the many 'carbon Trading' lobby groups, the IETA (International Emissions Trading Association.
Founding members, Shell and BP ! Chevron is there too and Exxon is in an associate group called the ETG (Emissions Trading Group)
http://www.ieta.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=19%3Adefault&id=168%3Aour-members&Itemid=114
Its quite simple to prove global warming addition by fossil fuels.
Any carbon monoxide or dioxide or other Carbon is a heat sink the more you put into the atmosphere anywhere you will get a temperature rise over the normal oxygen,nitrogen and a mix of other, its reflectivity is just lower.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
You have to be ignorant not to know that carbon acts as a heat sink the more you put into the air (parts per million) that is the more heat will be generated from it natural and man made of which industry generates hundreds of times more carbon than the volcano that just happened last year.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
Just thought I would fill you in since its so simple.
Ah, well Daniel, you are certainly correct in one aspect of your statement "Its quite simple to prove global warming addition by fossil fuels."
That is without doubt the 'simplest proof' I have heard for anything at any time, well done.
p.s. Dan a tip, play to your strengths, so don't join a debating club.
Actually, Daniel. It is easier to falsify a hypothesis. It was done years ago -http://tinyurl.com/32lg2h2
This new article spells out why Peter is not likely to have to pay up...
"On the gargantuan lie of climate change science"
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-gargantuan-lie-of-climate-change.html
Denis, it has occurred to me that there is certain and irrefutable proof that not one empirical evidence for AGW exists.
If there was, we would know of the finder just before he/she/they were crushed under the weight of Nobel Prizes, UN honours, British Knighthoods, acclaim and citations of honour from every establishment sucking on the AGW funding teat.
And Peter and Denis,
If he/she/they/it were Australian then the ALP supported by The Greens would see to reinstating the AK in the Australian Honours despite having removed it years ago in the interests of all men being equal!
There's a delicious irony in all of this! Despite all the rhetoric and waffle the warmers cannot come up with one single piece of empiric evidence because, of course, there isn't any. It's just a gigantic fraud!
Follow the money!
good on ya mate - we are tired of the doomsayers and fearmongers. I don't believe them anymore.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for inviting me to take part in your challenge. Sorry it took a while, but I've had trouble posting on your website and kept getting error messages when trying to submit. Anyway, hopefully this one will make it.
Based on your replies to previous posts I see a major issue with trying establish any case if we disagree on the some basic fundamentals. So firstly, I'd like to check that I understand what you believe to be true.
Do you agree that:
1) CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been increasing over the past century and that this increase is a result of emissions of CO2 from human activities?
2) CO2 is one of a number of gasses which include methane and water vapour which absorb radiation within the thermal infrared wavelength range?
3) Researchers have confirmed, through satellite measurements, that the troughs in the intensity of various wavelength bands of radiation emmitted from the earth to space correspond with the wavelength bands absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and that ground measurements show peaks in intensity from these same bands for radiation reflected back to the earth's surface?
4) Other gasses, such as sulphur dioxide, result in the production of aerosols which increase reflectance of solar radiation from the atmosphere and thus tend to cool the earth?
5) There will always be some degree of error in our ability to explain observations of the world around us due to the large number of factors involved and measurement error. Thus, there will always be a degree of uncertainty (or noise) in any model that we develop whether it is for predicting the operation of an electrical circuit, the fuel efficiency of a car, risks for insurance policies or the factors that influence the climate. However, this doesn’t prevent such models from being useful for explaining observations or predicting future outcomes.
6) Average global temperatures and sea levels have increased over the past 100 years by 0.7 degrees and 10 cm respectively along a fluctuating path indicating year to year variability of around 0.1 degrees C for temperature and 4 cm for sea level?
If we can agree on these facts, or at least find out which ones you take exception to and why, it would be a great help.
Thanks and best wishes,
Barrie May
Glen Waverley
Hello Barrie May and Glen Waverley,
I think you will get the best reply if you make your best submission (present your case in the strongest possible terms) rather than ask what Peter believes on various considerations.
Regarding your questions, you might find this discussion to be relevant:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-gargantuan-lie-of-climate-change.html
Thanks Dennis,
I have looked at your website and your lengthy arguments there explain our problem perfectly. You appear to dispute every piece of base data that I propose in my previous email to be generally accepted as true - even by greenhouse skeptics such as Jo Nova.
For example you appear to dispute:
1)That burning fossil fuels and other human activities such as land clearing have resulted in a measurable increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 100 year or so and are continuing to increase CO2 concentrations each year.
2) That there is any evidence that there has been any increase in the surface temperature of the earth over the past 100 years.
3) That gasses such as CO2, methane and water vapour, which are transparent to visible light but which absorb and reflect infra-red radiation (i.e. heat) emitted from the earth's surface, produce a greenhouse effect that keeps the earth's temperature 33 degrees higher than it would otherwise be.
If we can't agree on these premises then trying to explain the cause/effect relationship between CO2 and increase in temperature is like trying to prove Pythagoras's theorem when we can't agree that 1+1 = 2.
Also, could you let me know if it is possible to include graphs and diagrams. Words tend to get a bit boring and tedious for the audience.
Yours respectfully,
Barrie May
(BTW Glen Waverley is a location not a person, I thought Peter's conditions might require that as well).
Barry, excuse my intolerance but tip toeing around this challenge by alarmists has become a pathology.
One would not be mistaken for believing it was they who had something to lose not me.
Sorry, but either challenge or go away.
I really thought the challenge was simple enough for any to understand and yet AGW alarmists seem not to be able to grasp it.
Read it, its simple mate, give me a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that our emissions of CO2 drive the warming of our vast climate system. FULL STOP. Comprehend ?
My beliefs as yours are immaterial to the challenge - science and facts, not belief and ideology.
I want to know how our CO2 emissions can DRIVE (not be a part player) a climate system not by theory but evidence, as surely evidence must be available to produce such grandiose statements as the IPPC's 2007 Report. " Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
Such extraordinary claims that has man so dominating nature needs an extraordinary explanation based on observable evidence - surely Barrie if you go to that well, you will have all the evidence you need without the help of knowing my beliefs.
In general I believe that our CO2 emissions driving climate warming is as absurd and impossible as Anthropogenic Tidal Change.
The lesson's of King Canute to his advisors appears to be lost on alarmists.
Barrie, I just read your second post to Denis.
Put your challenge - it's not a debate. Points of disagreement will be put in the response.
Stop trying to control the outcome, let alone the challenge.
Your premise for "agreeing" is as absurd as demanding to know the "winning numbers" of a lottery before you buy the ticket.
For someone with the "settled science" your skirting the edges" like a spooked filly.
ooops, sorry Barrie, no Glen.
Your three points are not empirical facts. You must explain/show how they are conclusively derived from empirical facts. And so on.
For example, where do the 33 degrees come from? Did someone do an experiment with Earth where all greenhouse gases were removed? No, it's from a theoretical calculation. Is every step and assumption in the latter calculation correct?
If you make what you believe to be a correct submission, then you are in a legal position to get 10K$.
There should be no "starting assumptions" that determine the desired answer.
We can agree on geometry, calculus, statistics, fundamental physics, radiation physics, thermodynamics, measurement theory, physical measurement practice, etc., but not on any of the conclusions before you start.
Barrie.May you might as well give up now.
Nearly 200 years of climates science, direct observation and rules of physics count for naught.
And when even simple facts, that are beyond contention by even the most skeptical of climate scientists, are disputed (CO2 levels are rising, C02 is a greenhouse gas, there is an infrared absorption spectrum for CO2, CO2 from fossil fuels has a unique isotopic signature, etc) then the challenge is a complete inversion of logic.
Better to have fun with Tamino's take on this sort of challenge
hold on there GAramia:
Let's have a minimum of intellectual honesty please.
No one here has denied (1) that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has and is increasing, or (2) that CO2 is a "greenhouse effect gas" (i.e., has resonant scattering bands in the infra-red).
Maybe you want to actually read the links before making false attributions.
Your "unique isotopic signature" claim and the associated claim that therefore the atmospheric post-industrial CO2 "surplus" is from fossil fuel burning are tenuous, have been contested, and would need to be established.
Denis, ok, fair enough.
Moving on... you say the claim that atmospheric post-industrial CO2 "surplus" is from fossil fuel burning (is) tenuous...(and has) been contested.
Where else has this surplus come from? Not the oceans or else we would expect the opposite of the acidification we are seeing.
But back to Carbon isotpoes. The C13/C12 ratio should be falling if rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels and there are plenty of studies (like this one Ghosh 2003) that confirm this.
I would genuinely be interested in a link to a study where this is contested.
"GAramia ",
I hadn't realised that -
"Nearly 200 years of climates science, direct observation and rules of physics count for naught."
I assume by that you mean we cannot grasp the "TRUTH" of AGW Infallibility !!!
200 years worth eh ??? Amazing, I hadn't realised !!!
Such a grand and sweeping statement deserves all due respect for if true, you win 10k !
The only step left for you is to show us what you claim - thats all, simple mate, maybe Tamino could help ?
Just back up that statement with a wee fact or two and the money is yours.
Oh, and how many studies on C12/13 are there ?
Heres a few links that may question the claim.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
Peter - I'm not sure the value of your link to that blog article by a guy with an economics degree who works on computers.
(Along the way the writer asks, "Have they allowed for this?", "I’m not sure how one would figure out..."
And concludes "In my humble opinion, it is simply not possible to make sense of the C12:C13 ratio until a great deal more work is done")
I said 200 years because Fourier (1824) began our understanding of the planet's climate, Tyndall (1861) showed that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, and so on.
For papers on the proof that atmospheric CO2 is rising because of human activity begin with Revelle and Suess (1957), Bolin and Eriksson (1958) and Keeling (1960)
You can get current data etc from - Monthly atmospheric 13C/12C isotopic ratios for 10 SIO stations
GAramia, as an egalitarian man, I have to say I find statements like yours risible, " I'm not sure the value of your link to that blog article by a guy with an economics degree who works on computers."
So you didn't grasp his point or those of the links because you deem him unworthy ?
If he had a meteorological degree, would you be impressed then ?
Does the degree itself, impart reason ?
Can only warmist "Climatologists" or in reality the "High Priests" of the AGW faith utter "Infallible edicts" and hold "Imprimatur" over the written word on all things climate ?
I am a Train Driver and the most educated people on Earth cant match this reasonable challenge - that brings them into question not my lack of institutionalised education.
You also have neither bothered to read or failed to understand the challenge.
I don't doubt CO2 is rising, I want as any reasonable person would but you obviously cant provide "a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that mans CO2 emissions DRIVE warming."
Tell me how mans obscure portion of less than one molecule of CO2 per 10,000 other parts DRIVES warming.
Show the evidence that in this 10,000 parts , this tiny portion then dominates the 400 molecules of H2O which is a more potent "greenhouse gas".
Pontificating and calling on the name of AGW Saints is boring, it appears that is all AGW proponents have.
I am not here to debate but it does appears you are here to try to obscure the challenge, so "piss or get off the pot" as they say.
You wont challenge, we will receive just another windy red herring from you, I could safely put a side bet on it, just another "hollow vessel", like AGW itself.
Hi Peter. Lets see what we can discover.
Firstly I note this comment earlier "We can agree on geometry, calculus, statistics, fundamental physics, radiation physics, thermodynamics, measurement theory, physical measurement practice, etc"
So lets use that as a starting point although there are some other parts of science I think might need to be added - Chemistry, Astronomy, Quantum Mechanics, Fluidmechanics.
Next the understanding of AGW can't be put in a single post, there are multiple components. So I will start working through them 1 by 1.
Starting subject. The Greenhouse Effect.
Point 1. What would the Earth's temperature be without the GH Effect?
A previous poster cited the oft mentioned figure of 33C colder. This is a reasonable figure but is only an approximation. The number is at best an approximation since it is based on the assumption that a GH free Earth would retain the same reflectivity and thus reflect the same proportion of sunlight straight back to Space and not be heated by that component of the suns rays. In reality any climate that was 33 Deg colder would include MASSIVELY more coverage of ice - the Ice Ages were only 5-8 degrees colder. So the Earth without GH gases would probably reflect even more and thus be colder still.
However, to the simpler contention that the Earth would be several 10's of degrees colder without the GH Effect, what empirical evidence do we have for this?
Having accepted Thermodynamics as a starting point, from Thermodynamics we apply the Stephan-Boltsmann Eqn that allows us to calculate the expected temperature the Earth should be at, based on the amount of energy the Earth needs to radiate to space to stay in thermal equilibrium with the energy coming in from the Sun, after deducting sunlight reflected. This is the source of the calculation yielding -18 C subject to the provision wrt to reflectivity I mentioned earlier.
Although we are accepting Thermodynamics, of which the SB Eqn is a part, is there empirical evidence to support SB? Yes, mountains of it. The SB Eqn is much more than a century old and since we developed the capacity to measure the strength of Electromagnetic Radiation across its entire spectrum, including visible, Infrared and Ultraviolet, the SB Eqn has been subject to endless empirical confirmation ever since in laboratories around the world and in the ordinary working daily lives of engineers observing the world around them. When you see the element on an electric cooktop heat up and start to glow you are seeing the SB qn being verified - it is at the temperature it needs to be at to loose the heat being generated by the current flowing through it and electrical resistance. So the validity of the SB eqn is backed by masses of empirical evidence. To reject the calculation requires rejection of a piece of Thermodynamics (agreed to earlier) and a body of empirical evidence.
grrr short post restrictions are a pain in the b%%t.
To continue
There is however one other piece of empirical evidence that the SB eqn is correct in its specific calculation of what a GH free world would look like.
The Moon
The Moon definitely doesn't have a GH Effect because it doesn't even have an atmosphere. The Moon orbits around the Earth which in turn orbits around the Sun. So the moons average distance from the Sun is the same as the Earths. So it receives the same intensity of sunlight as the Earth. The SB Eqn's conclusion will be just as applicable to the moon, with the caveat that the moon has a different reflectivity than the Earth so the result will not be exactly the same. But certainly it should provide empirical support for an estimation of the temperature.
Since the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere while the Earth, even without a GH effect, still would, the Earths atmosphere would still provide thermal inertia and thus buffer the magnitude of temperature swings between day and night. The Moon however would be expected to see much larger swings between its day & night side. But it is not the size of the swings that the SB eqn is predicting but the Average.
So what is the average temperature of the Moon?
Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C
Mean surface temperature (night) -153°C
Average of these two: -23°C!
So, empirical evidence that a celestial body, orbiting the Sun at the distance of the Earth will have a temperature several tens of degrees lower than we actually see without something else warming it!
Point 1 supported by empirical evidence!
Point 2. Could there be some other source of this additional warmth, other than the GH Effect?
Could internal heat from the Earth add this?. No. All the empirical evidence from Geology, Seismology, Vulcanolgy and Nuclear Physics and Astro-physics shows that the the amount of energy generated by nuclear decay inside the Earth and Tidal force interactions with the Moon and the Sun are orders of magnitude too small to provide the required heating. Based on empirical evidence.
Since additional energy being generated within the Earth can't provide the missing energy, that leaves us with 'something' that is altering the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. And since the Sun doesn't vary its strength (apart from small variations over the solar cycle which are only around 0.1% and are cyclical so they cancel out over the longer term and do not provide a 'net' heating source - again supported by empirical evidence) we are left with 'something' that is altering the outgoing radiation pattern of the Earth. Based on the empirical evidence so far. That ;something is the GH Effect.
More on that in subsequent posts.
@Glenn,
As a reminder the challenge is "for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming."
The steps in the latter demonstration are outlined here:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-gargantuan-lie-of-climate-change.html
as a suggested guide on the logical steps required.
The SB equation is established, not contested. Correction: A planet being irradiated by a sun is NOT in equilibrium, by definition of equilibrium in thermodynamics.
Just going through the stages of the argument Denis. More On the GH Effect tomorrow.
Can I presume from your comments that you do not dispute the points I have made so far, that the Earth would be significantly colder without 'something' and that this statement is based on empirical evidence.
Glen,
I am so bored with the incessant need for AGW adherents to "Editorialise".
Please just challenge mate - "a conclusive argument based on empirical facts ... blah, blah etc…(for the 100th time).."
What is so bloody onerous about that !
I thought it all pretty simple and straightforward.
Why all the tippy-toeing ?
Don't you know what you believe or why ?
Its like "pulling teeth" trying to get you lot to just challenge.
Other blogs are for imperious AGW grandstanding, this one actually asks you to put it on the line and surely you can do that?
p.s. If you don't have empirical evidence don't bother - and assumption, especially through sciences lack of knowing is not evidence. (though those at RealClimate and the IPCC would possibly disagree)
Next Point
Radiative Heat Transfer.
The starting point for this is an understanding of the radiation absorption and emmission characteristics of the various gases that make up the atmosphere. Here we have huge databases of empritically obtained details spectroscopic data, absorption line by absorption line for a range of gases in the atmospher. And how these absorption/emission characteristics vary with temperature and pressure. We also have empirical data on presure and temperature distributions in the atmosphere, moisture content at differeing altitudes etc. All empirical data. So we have an empirical starting point for our considerations.
Next we must delve into theory, but theory that is part of physics and thermodynamics, notable the Radiative Transfer Equation RTE). For a discussion of the concepts involved read here for example - http://cybele.bu.edu/courses/ge645spr09/GE645-Chapter-02.pdf.
Solutions to this equation are not of the pen and paper variety. They require significant computing power. However the solutions only require a knowledge of the spectroscopic properties of molecules in the atmosphere, the proportions of such molecules at various altitudes in the atmosphere, the temperature and pressure of the atmosphere at different altitudes in the atmosphere. All empirical data. Then the application of theory and computing grunt.
However we cannot the expect the conclusions to be taken at face value. This is one of the basic processes in science. Empirical data combined with analysis based either on existing theory (in this case) or new or additional theory, leads to predictions of expected new empirical data. For which you seek confirmation be then seeking confirmatory empirical data.
So. Calculations from theory & data using solutions to the RTE make predictions of additional data we expect to see, namely the Outgoing Longwave spectrum for the planet. Yielding the results shown in Fig 3A of this article for example by Ray PierreHumbert http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf. Note the extreme degree of agreement between observations from the AIRS satellite and the calculations expected from data, theory and calculation. This is not an isolated example. These are consistent result from comparing analysis with observations from satellites and high flying aircraft. In addition the analysis also predicts the return of Longwave IR radiation back to the Earth consistent with observations over decades. Very strong empirical support for the validity of the analytical technique applied to the empirical spectroscopic data.
Additional empirical support for the validity of the calculation method is derived from the fact that these calculations are not just used for doing Climate Science related measurements of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. The same data and theory is used to perform calculation across a whole range of non-climate related disciplines. The facts, that an IR Heat seeking missile can find its target from 10-20 Km away, that satellite based Early-Warning satellites can distinguish an ICBM launch from a thunderstorm over Siberia, that ‘Stars Wars’ airborne lasers do actually sort of work, are additional empirical evidence that the calculations, based on theory and empirical data are valid. A little known fact is that the most widely used commercially available program for analysing the RTE, ModTran, is part owned by the US Defence Dept. They hold around ½ the patents for it. Their interest isn’t Climate Science related. And I think we can agree they are the ‘hard men’.
So, having shown that our understanding of Radiative Transfer in the atmosphere is soundly and empirically based, what does it show us? Look again at Fig 3a from Ray PierreHumberts article. It shows the modelled vs observed spectrum for the planet. And superimposed over it a series of curves he labels as 220K, 240K, 260K, 285K. These curves are the theoretical solutions to Planck’s eqn describing the emission spectrum of any body at temperature X – in this case 220K, 240K, 260K and 285K
In turn Plancks eqn is a well established part of thermodynamics (accepted as a part of the accepted evidence base for this contets), the basis of many day to day solutions to heat transfer problems solved by engineers all over the world every day. Don’t build a boiler for a big power station if you don’t understand Plancks eqn.
The point of R PH’s graph is to show that the modelled and empirically observed spectrum for the Earth is an amalgamation of the 285K (12 C) Planck curve in regions where GH Gases – he shows H2O, CO2 & Ozone – DON’T have absorption bands, and other temperature Planck bands in regions where there are GH gas absorption bands. 220 K (-33 C) for CO2, around 240 - 260K (-33 to -13 C) for H20 and also 260 (-13 C) for Ozone. If Plancks Eqn is valid, and it has vast empirical evidence to support it, then the Earths outgoing Longwave Radiation spectrum is an amalgam of emissions from sources at very different temperatures.
So now we come to another aspect of radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere; Some of the more specific detail. At some frequencies, at the core of the absorption band for CO2 for example, absorption is saturated. At high pressures (low altitudes) photons emitted by the Earth in these wavelengths cannot escape to space. The Atmosphere is ‘optically thick’ However, once a photon in these bands is absorbed by a GH gas molecule, its energy is not lost. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics precludes that. Therefore this energy has to go somewhere. A tiny percentage of this is through the GH molecule reradiating it, where it is promptly absorbed by another GH molecule. However, the vast majority of GH molecules transfer the energy they have just absorbed to other molecules in the atmosphere around them through collisions. Overwhelmingly non GH molecules.
A molecule in the lower atmosphere will undergo several billion collisions every second. So the vast majority of the energy absorbed by GH gas molecules is distributed through the general atmosphere as heat. These other molecules will predominately radiate some of their heat in a range of frequencies governed by the Planck eqn based on the temperature of the atmosphere they are at. If the frequency they radiate at happens to be outside the GH gas absorption frequencies then it might make it to space. Unless it is radiated downwards in which case it returns back to the Earth. However if it is within the GH absorption frequencies it will be reabsorbed again. And so the dance continues. Except as you go to higher altitudes. There the reduced pressure means that, in frequencies that were opaque due to each GH gas, the reduced density and hence reduced molecule count and thus increased path length between absorption events, means that a photon emitted upwards in these frequencies starts to have a steadily increased probability of making it out to space. So for different frequencies and concentrations of different molecules, the altitude at which the path to Space ‘clears’ varies.
However, the SB eqn and Plancks eqn still apply, so emission from a higher altitude, where the temperature is lower, means that the amount of energy radiated from that height at that frequency is lower, Therefore the emission strength recorded out in space at that frequency should match the expected strength from the Planck Eqn for the temperature at that altitude.
Not too sure how much overlap there is of text here.
So, the emissions in the H2O absorption bands should match the temperature at the altitude at which H2O becomes thin. And since the upper Troposphere is cold and the lower Stratosphere even colder, the H2O levels up there are really low (empirical evidence). So the temperature at which at which H2O becomes transparent will tend to be in the mid to upper Troposphere. Since the Lapse rate in the atmosphere is around 6.5 Deg per 1000 metres (empirical evidence), the mid point for emissions upward by H2O at around the average of (240K to 260K – 250) would be (285-250)/6.5/1000 = around 5500 M. Not a bad mid point estimate. Similarly the midpoint altitude for emissions by Ozone will be a combination of Tropospheric Ozone & Stratospheric Ozone concentrations. Again not a bad mid point at 255K. But the killer is the emissions temperature associated with CO2 – 220K – this is at 10,000M or higher, And not the spike in the middle of the CO2 zone where emissions are higher. This corresponds to the maximum absorption point in the CO2 spectrum, and thus the maximum altitude required before CO2 is no longer saturated at these frequencies. And this corresponds to an altitude where the lapse rate has turned +ve. The atmospheric temperature is rising again (empirical evidence) with altitude.
So we expect to see based on our understanding of the behaviour of different GH gases in the atmosphere that the Earths OLR spectrum would be the superposition of differing Planck emission curves for different temperatures, based on the altitude and thus temperature at which each frequency becomes optically clear up to space.
Conclusion. We have a theoretical analysis based on empirical evidence and well established thermodymanic pricnciples, in turn based on empirical evidence that we should see an outgoing Longwave IR Spectraum for the earth with certain intensities and properties. And that is exactly what the empirical evidence shows us. The Earths’s OLR spectrum, as shown in R PH’s figure 3a matches our expectations. We have empirical evidence that the atmosphere behaves in the way theory expects. We are still standing on empirical High Ground
Thanks for posting Glenn, it's a rarity for someone to challenge.
I've read your post and will get back to you more thoroughly next week when I am not in the weird twilight world of night-shift.
I am however not sure of your overall point.
Are you backing your argument on outgoing radiation and concluding that any discrepancy is caused by the one molecule of anthropogenic CO2 in the 90,000 other parts of atmosphere ?
Its all good and well to continually quote empirical evidence from observation and measurement but that is not the kind that asserts anthropogenic CO2 is the driver of our vast climate system, its would takes a huge leap of faith to associate your points with mans "evil doin's ".
What is required is a wee bit more specific, it's the kind that links mans CO2 to "Driving" a climate system, as always a big ask for a gas, let alone mans minuscule addition of a trace one.
So remembering that the radiation the AGW hypothesis is based on is the solar radiation which warms the earth and is then radiated away from it.
You will need the empirical evidence which shows how this radiation when absorbed then scattered by our odd CO2 molecule (which can only absorb a fraction of the infrared radiation coming from the ground ) then heats the body from which it came ; as far as I am aware that feat defies the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The fact is that when the radiation is emitted to the atmosphere it is the result of its temperature, not the cause of its temperature.
Again any radiation from the earth cannot reheat the earth.
But if you can explain it, I suggest you race to the patents office as you will have discovered a method of amplifying energy - "Perpetual Energy" !!!
Peter, thanks for the reply. I was waiting for a response from you or Denis before proceeding further.I hope to resolve
questions about the validity of the GH effect first before moving on to the rest of AGW. understanding AGW all hinges on understanding the GH Effect correctly.
Addressing one of your points, which you have raised with others previously, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2, and that this low percentage in some way implies that it couldn't make that much of a contribution. First let me offer the evidence of another gas - Ozone. Ozone is less than 1% the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, only about 3 ppm or less. Yet it manages to absorb around 99% of the Ultra-Violet component from incoming sunlight.
This argument is essentially a furphy. Consider this analogy. You have a glass of water - all crystal clear. Then you add a few drops of ink and mix. The liquid is now cloudy. By your argument, how could this be? The ink is such a tiny percentage of what's in the glass?
Answer, because the water is transparent to visible light where as the ink isn't. What matters isn't how much water there is but how much ink and at what concentration.
A basic calculation. Air at sea level has a density of around 1.22 Kg/M3. Air has a molecular weight of around 29, made up overwhelmingly of N2, O2 & Argon. 1.22 Kg is 0.042 Moles of Air which from Avogadro's number is 2.53*10^22 molecules in a cubic metre. CO2 makes up 390/1000000 of this so 9.8 * 10^18 CO2 molecules in 1 cubic meter of air. Take the cube root of this - around 2,145,000. For every metre that an IR molecule travels it will encounter over 2 million CO2 molecules. By the time it reached 10,000 metres, near the stratosphere, that the figure is now in the billions - the upper atmosphere is thinner up there but it still adds up. But we also need to add the H2O molecules in that column as well - 10 times as many, plus all the other GH gases.
To make it out to space that photon has to run the gauntlet of billions of GH gas molecules that it can interact with and possibly be absorbed by, depending what the wavelength of the photon is.
At the same time it also runs the gauntlet of trillions of N2 and O2 molecules. But they don't matter. Why?
Because they don't absorb light in the far IR. Just like all the water in the glass doesn't, only the ink. The photon can shoot straight through all those N2 & O2 molecules as if they are ghosts. Because for that IR photon they are.
So what matters is NOT what percentage the GH gases are in the atmosphere, but rather how many GH gas molecules there are in a column of air and thus how likely it is that an IR photon will encounter one. The rest of the air is irrelevent.
Just ghosts.
So to this comment of yours "What is required is a wee bit more specific, it's the kind that links mans CO2 to "Driving" a
climate system, as always a big ask for a gas, let alone mans minuscule addition of a trace one."
This seems to reflect a common misconception about gases and the absorbing of light etc. That a gas is too thin so it
can't do much. I hope the calculation above has shed some light on that. As my calculation shows, there is a lot of
molecules in even 1 cubic metreof Air. In fact if all the molecules in the atmosphere absorbed any light that hit them we
would probable live in permanent darknesss because they wouls absorb it all in the first few metres.
So to the capacity of something that is 'just a gas' to impact on climate, I would ask you to look at Denis's article on
radiative heat transfer. He produced vsn 1, asked for some comments from various scientists and produced vsn 2. He is off
working on vsn 3. I also made some comments to him. At the top of his post for vsn 1 is a diagram of the Earths Energy
Budget by Kiehl & Trenberth. Have a good look at. Notice the arrowed flow from the surface labelled 'Surface Radiation',
396 Watts/M^2. What happens to it?. 40 Watts/M^2 makes it all the way out to space. 356 Watts/M^2 DOESN'T! 90% of the IR
radiation leaving the Earths surface is absorbed by the Atmosphere. By the GH Gases. Because there are enough of them in
the atmosphere to do that. I would think that anything that can 'mess about' with 90% of of the energy radiated from the
surface is a phenomenon that is going to be able have quite a significant impact on what th climate is don't you? Look now
at Fig 3a from Ray Pierrehumbert's article that I referred you to earlier. In those regions he has labelled as H2O, CO2
and O3 (and other smaller ones he doesn't mention for Methane, Nitrous Oxide, CFC's etc) what you are seeing isn't
radiation from the surface. It is radiation that has been 'messed about with' by GH gases. Most of the spectrum reaching
space is affected by GH gases.
So this comment of yours "...by our odd CO2 molecule (which can only absorb a fraction of the infrared radiation coming
from the ground )..." is fundamentally wrong. CO2 isn't 'the odd molecule' of the molecules THAT ARE THE ABSORBERS. And
the GH gases do absorb a fraction of the radiation coming from the ground - 9/10ths of it.
Next your statements about the Laws of Thermodynamics, Perpetual Motion etc. The GH Effect doesn't violate the GH Effect and there is no Perpetual Motion machine involved.
Firstly the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, The law of Conservation of Energy. Refer again to the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram. Look at all the energy/heat flows, add them up How much into the Earth system and out, how much into the surface & out, how much into the atmosphere and out. They balance. No creation or loss of energy. So no perpetual motion machine.
Now to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This one creates a lot of confusion. Having completed an Engineering degree many years ago, including 4 years studying Thermodynamics it leaves me picking my jaw up off the floor when I here some of them. The commonest misrepresentation of it is "Heat can't flow from a cold source to a hot source".
Totally false.
The correct statement of the 2nd law in this form is "NET Heat can't flow from a cold source to a hot source". There is nothing stopping heat from flowing from cold to hot so long as there are other flows from Hot to cold that outweigh it so the NET flow is Hot to Cold.
Look at the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram again. Flow from the Atmosphere to the Surface 333, flow from the Surface to the Atmosphere 356+17+80 = 453. Net flow from Hot to Cold 120. No breach of the 2nd Law.
Think about it. A molecule emits a photon in the atmosphere. That photon will be going in a totally random direction, Up, Down, Left, Right. But wait a second, if it goes down it is heading towards the warmer surface - its not allowed to do that by the misrepresented description. But the photon has no brain, no decision making, IQ of 0. So what is the mechanism that stops it from going in the 'wrong direction'. In fact how can it even know there is something out there that will make this the 'wrong direction'. Answer. It doesn't, there is no such mechanism.
What enforces the 2nd law is that the cold source will be emitting fewer photons than the hot source because it is colder. So the NET flow of photons will be from hotter to colder. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a statistically derived law.
Strictly speaking the 2nd Law is a statement about a property of anything in the Universe called Entropy which is a statistical measure of the degree of disorder in a system. The 2nd Law says that Entropy cannot decrease IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. It does not prevent sub-components within that system from experiencing localised negative entropy changes - increases in orderliness or the maintenance of order over a period of time. Humans like you and I are examples of the maintenance of pockets order in a broader Universe that is slowly becoming more disordered. We can be that because we are not Closed systems in the Thermodynamic sense - we exchange matter, energy and ultimately order with the wider Universe around us. The statement of the 2nd Law as being about heat flow between hot and cold is a derivative consequence of this entropy based definition of it
And the system involving the Earth is even more complex since just looking at the interchange between the Surface and Atmosphere alone is even less valid since we are actually dealing with a heat transfer problem involving 4 components - Sun, Surface, Atmosphere and Deep Space. So the 2nd Law even more so cannot be invoked in its correct form without considering all the components. In Engineering this would be called 'getting your system boundary right'.
Then this statement includes a general confusion about what heating means: "The fact is that when the radiation is emitted to the atmosphere it is the result of its temperature, not the cause of its temperature. Again any radiation from the earth cannot reheat the earth. "
This is best explained with an analogy. Imagine a water tank. This is the Earths Surface. Water flows in at the top. The water is heat and the flow in is the flow from the Sun (less the reflected amount). The tank has an outlet at the bottom - flow to space - and as the water level rises the flow through this outlet increases. Eventually the water level in the tank has risen enough that the pressure at the bottom generates enough flow through the outlet to balance the flow in. Then the level stabilises. The amount of water in the tank is analogous to the total heat content of the climate system and the depth of the water is the temperature.The confusion in your statement is in the use of the phrase 'to heat'. To heat something is to increase its heat content and thus increase its temperature. Cooling reduces its heat content and lowers it temperature. But if the temperature of something isn't changing it isn't being heated or cooled. This is where it is important to distinguish between the heat content of a system, and heat flows in to/out from it. This analogy is equivalent to the Earth with no GH Effect.
Now I take a bucket and start catching some of the water flowing from the outlet and putting it back into the tank. The 'effective' flow out of the tank is reduced and the level rises until a new level is reached where the flow out the bottom, less the amount I am bucketing back matches the inflow. Things are stable again at a new 'temperature'. And if I stop bucketing then the level (temperature) drops again.
Now consider an alternative way of doing this. Instead of that bucket I put a valve on the outlet. If I vary how far open the valve is I can vary the restriction on the outlet, varying the effective outflow and producing the same effect.
Exactly the same result as my bucket. And in Thermodynamic terms they are exactly the same thing. nothing prevents me from doing either.
Glenn, only have a minute as I leave for work (yet again) but your analogy re : minute amounts of some substances having and effect, then trying to infer CO2 has a similar effect are risible.
We are talking about CO2, which in total is 38 parts per 10,000.
Thats not mans puny contribution, thats total.
H20 is many time a more powerful a greenhouse gas and is available in average at 400 parts per 10,000.
So the AGW analogy has the far weaker and far less numerous CO2 dominating the more powerful and numerous H2O, then not content with that then goes on to dominate all other of natures forces and drive a whole climate system.
Your hypothesis is not about some small effect but anthropogenic CO2 being the DRIVER OF CLIMATIC WARMING !!!!!! You need to keep your proportions and effects equal if you want to use comparisons.
If you do need to make comparisons as you have no data on the actual observed effect of atmospheric CO2- make them realistic, like the effect of a few drops of petrol would have when added to a 44 gallon drum of high grade methanol. That would be a far more realistic comparison as to the effect of the minute amount of CO2 to H2O.
Remember CO2 according to "empirical data" obtained from Nth Greenland and Vostock Ice cores disproves the AGW hypothesis as they show clearly that CO2 does not drive temperature at all but CO2 increase lags behind temperature increase by 800 years……. Fact, unlike anything from the theoretical world of AGW.
So what properties have changed in CO2 to alter that reality ?
Peter
Thanks for the reply.
Firstly, continually referencing CO2, or H2O’ or any GH gases concentration relative to the total volume of the atmosphere isn’t relevant. What matters is the relative contribution each GH gas makes to the GH Effect, in Watts/M^2.
You are right, water vapour’s contribution is larger than CO2. But not massively so. And your comment seems to imply that H2O is a more powerful GH Gas. It isn’t, not molecule for molecule. It doesn’t matter which gas we are talking about, each molecule can only absorb one photon at a time. What matters is how much of each gas is present in the atmosphere and the range of frequencies over which they absorb. H2O is 10 times the quantity of CO2 true. But it isn’t the relative magnitude of their concentrations that matters, it’s the relative magnitude of the radiative impact that they have that matters. Recall that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic with concentration. One doubling of CO2 (2 * concentration) will have impact 1*x. 2 doublings (4 * concentration) will have 2*x, 3 doublings (8 * concentration) will have 3*x etc. And the same applies to any other GH gas. Adding more has a progressively smaller impact. For this reason additional Methane is often described as having 25 times more impact than CO2 because its starting concentration is about 200 times smaller. Thus you need much less extra methane to produce a doubling. For H2O, its concentration is already 10 times that of CO2. So that is around 3.3 doublings.
However the impact of H2O relative to CO2 is less than this because of the different behavior of the two gases. All the other GH gases are called ‘non-condensing’ GH gases. H2O is the only one that can condense in air. So it is the only one whose concentration varies with temperature. And thus varies substantially with altitude. All the other gases are fairly well mixed in the atmosphere, right to the top – the only exception to this is ozone because it is created in the stratosphere. H2O concentrations vary with altitude. 10000-40000 ppm at sea level compared to CO2 at 390 ppm. But in the lower Stratosphere H2O is only 5-10 ppm vs CO2 still at 390 ppm. The upper atmosphere is extremely dry.
This has a huge impact. If you haven’t yet read it yet, please read Ray PierreHumbert’s article. Look at Fig 3a. Notice that in the regions associated with H2O, the spectrum substantially follows the 260K Planck function line while the CO2 region is down to the 220K line. This is because the GH effect of H2O drops off at a much lower altitude than CO2. And thus radiation emitted from the atmosphere in the H2O frequencies that reaches out to space originates at a lower, warmer altitude. And thus the amount of energy that can be radiated to space in the H2O frequencies is greater. Causing the magnitude of the GH effect from H2O to actually be lower than it would be if it behaved the same as the other GH gases. If CO2 & H2O average concentrations in the atmosphere were the same then the GH effect from CO2 would be greater because H2O’s upper atmosphere impact is reduced because its concentration in the upper atmosphere reduces more quickly due to condensation.
Like a boxer, the GH effect is made up of a left/right combo – lower atmosphere absorption and upper atmosphere attenuation. All the other GH gases have equal Left and Right punches. H2O has a good left but a crippled right. The only reason it is still the larger component is because there so much more of it. H2O should be like 3.3 boxers to CO2’s 1, but actually because of its weakened left, it is actually about 2.6.
These figures are from http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
On relative contributions to the GH effect
Cloudy Sky Clear Sky
H2O 50% 67%
Clouds 25% 0%
CO2 19% 24%
Other GH
Gases. 7% 9%
I’d like to reserve discussing Ice core records etc to a later stage, until after we completed discussing the basic GH Effect. All I’ll say at this point is the view that the time lag in the ice core suggests some ‘problem’ with AGW theory is wrong, a common misconception. The time lag is what is expected. But lets save that for later.
@Glenn,
It does not matter that each molecule only absorbs one photon at a time. On a per-molecule basis it is the cross section (probability for absorption) per molecule that is relevant.
It is not the percent of the GH-effect specific to a dominant GH gas that is the most important: It is the degree of over saturation of the resonant absorption. In the case of CO2 there is 4 orders of magnitude over saturation.
The latter degree of saturation is such that the GH forcing radiative response from CO2 increase is extremely attenuated (whether "logarithmic" or not), relying on increases in the off-resonance "wings" of the cross section. This is a key point, in terms of the physics and it is the magnitude of this attenuation that matters.
GCMs do not calculate the latter attenuation from physics but instead "derive" and use an ad hoc "CO2 climate sensitivity", then add their ad hoc water vapor positive feedback...
See my calculation of the saturation effect for CO2...
Glenn - you note "the view that the time lag in the ice core suggests some ‘problem’ with AGW theory is wrong"
Indeed.
The "CO2 lags temperature" comment shows an incomplete understanding of the processes involved when the Earth comes out of an ice age
The deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles. But the relatively weak forcing of changes in orbital cycles is not enough by itself to explain the significant warming needed to move the climate out of an ice age.
So while the warming of the planet releases CO2 from the oceans, the further warming observed is only consistent with the amplifying effect of CO2.
In any event, this is not relevant in describing today's warming. Obviously we are not at the beginning of a deglaciation now. Rather, human beings have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% since pre-industrial times - and the current emissions of 7 billion human beings are continuing this process.
On the "CO2 is saturated" comment - I recommend reading A saturated gassy argument part 1 and part 2 of this topic by Weart and Pierrehumbert
Denis
My comments about photons and numbers of CO2 attoms was addressed at Peter's view that the amount of CO2 and other GH gases as a percentage of the TOTAL amount of gas in the atmosphere is a relevant measure of something. I pointed out this isn't so since the bulk of the atmosphere does not contribute to absorption at all. Therefore CO2's contribution to the GH effect has to be measured relative to the contribution of other GH gases.
Then I pointed out to him that the contribution from H2O isn't 10 times greater than CO2 just because their relative concentrations are in that ratio. It is actually their relative radiative forcing that is the issue. I then pointed out that this ratio is somewhat lower still for water vapor since the fact that is a condensable gas results in its radiative effect diminishing more rapidly with altitude and thus that its effect is lower than another GH gas would be at the same average concentration as H2O.
The point about 1 photon per molecule was the perhaps unstated assumption people often make that some molecules are stronger GH gases than other molecules, molecule for molecule which is incorrect, This agrees with your first basic point.
As to this statement "It is the degree of over saturation of the resonant absorption. In the case of CO2 there is 4 orders of magnitude over saturation.". That isn't quite correct Denis. Some absorption frequencies are saturated, and at the center of the absorption band highly so. However at other frequencies, the wings you mention, it is not saturated. And the effect isn't "extremely attenuated". Even from just a cursory look at Fig 2 from Ray PierreHumbertys article, increasing from 300 to 1200 ppm looks to expand the range of wavenumbers where it is will be saturated by around 30%. With still much more scope with further CO2 increase. That is not counting the other peaks between wavenumbers 900 to 1100 & 1900 to 2100 that start to have an effect they haven't had before. Still lots of scope for more absorption there. You say you have a calculation of the saturation effect but there was no link.
So "This is a key point, in terms of the physics and it is the magnitude of this attenuation that matters.". Absolutely true. And there is more scope for additional attentuation in those wings that are not yet saturated. This is the basis on which the forcing effect of additional CO2 is calculated. But your comment about this response being "EXTREMELY attenuated" doesn't seem justified on the evidence. 30%+ doesn't count as extremely attenuated in my book!
Next, this statement "GCMs do not calculate the latter attenuation from physics but instead "derive" and use an ad hoc "CO2 climate sensitivity", then add their ad hoc water vapor positive feedback..."
GCM's don't calculate this attenuation at all. That is done by Radiative Transfer calculation programs. For example commercially available programs such as ModTran and also more specialized programs that can do more detailed calculations over smaller frequency ranges. These are not GCM's.
The GCM's and also the simpler 1 dimensional climate models use the results from the RTC's to provide the radiative component to the model. But the RTC's are not dependent on the GCMs.
I'm not sure what you mean by ""derive" and use an ad hoc "CO2 climate sensitivity"". Surely, if it is derived then that means that it was produced from the calculations of the GCM - add GH Gas, run the calculations until the climate change is stable, yield the temperature change calculated and voila - Climate sensitivity. What is 'ad hoc' about that.
And what is 'ad hoc' about calculating the water vapour feedback?
Build a model that divides the earth into boxes as small and thus as detailed as your computer processing power can handle, then apply the basic principles of physics, thermodynamics, atmospheric chemistry, radiative transfer etc to what occurs within the boxes and what occurs at the interfaces between the boxes - conservation of mass, energy, momentum etc - and see how the contents of the boxes evolves over time.
There will certainly be error margins on your calculation, but it certainly isn't ad hoc.
Glenn,
could you please just put a challenge as concisely as possible instead of Ad infinitum argument ? The many posts just ramble along, just one theory and assumption after another, including assumptions based on mans ignorance of cause.
Empirical facts that show our CO2 actually warming the atmosphere would be nice as well as I not even your "minute amount" argument relies on all of CO2 not mankind's puny percentage.
This is a straight out challenge not a "he said, she said debate."
Its impossible, well too time consuming to rebut every point when it's leading nowhere and a lot based on already refuted IPCC assumption.
But on a couple of points, firstly from GArmia in relation to Vostock Ice cores,
"So while the warming of the planet releases CO2 from the oceans, the further warming observed is only consistent with the amplifying effect of CO2."
This can only be based on an obsession with CO2, why then with this so called "amplifying effect" does the Ice core record show major cooling from warming with high levels of CO2?
This statement is calling black/white, it has no basis in fact, the record however does.
This AGW pretence at being sure how we glaciate or emerge from glaciation shows a total lacking in not only science but humility, as not one human on earth knows, not one.
to be continued ……...
part 2
and this one from you
"Think about it. A molecule emits a photon in the atmosphere. That photon will be going in a totally random direction, Up, Down, Left, Right. But wait a second, if it goes down it is heading towards the warmer surface - its not allowed to do that by the misrepresented description. But the photon has no brain, no decision making, IQ of 0. So what is the mechanism that stops it from going in the 'wrong direction'. In fact how can it even know there is something out there that will make this the 'wrong direction'. Answer. It doesn't, there is no such mechanism. "
Mate, you don't grasp the process as it's not a mechanism at work. The photon DOES go down but I will let this quote from Joe Postma explain,
"… because you still have the reality that the cold atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the warmer ground. It wouldn’t matter if ALL of the back-IR was from CO2 (or anything else). If it is coming from a colder source, the colder source will not raise the temperature of a warmer object. The warmer object has a higher number of excited microstates and these cannot be augmented by conduction or radiation with a colder source...or even a source of the same temperature. The only thing that can happen is the warmer object “lose” microstates to the colder object, which “gains” them. This happens either by conduction or radiation or both. "
To give a simple layman's example, I was driving a Locomotive the other day that has an extraordinarily powerful headlight at night but in sunlight it does not augment vision in the slightest, it has absolutely no effect. It's the same with heat, otherwise a simple thermos would explode by its own heat, magically amplified by its own reradiated energy.
I really don't give a rats about Kiehl and Trenberth's calculations, they are disputed and not fact, assumption only, they also show reradiating as magically heating a warmer body.
In regard to this from yourself
"Recall that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic with concentration. One doubling of CO2 (2 * concentration) will have impact 1*x. 2 doublings (4 * concentration) will have 2*x, 3 doublings (8 * concentration) will have 3*x etc."
The late Steven Schneider, warmist climatologist said of CO2,
" Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "
The once leading AGW prophet disagrees with you on exactly the same "logarithmic grounds" as yourself.
It's the problem of defending theory as fact.
@Glenn,
You said: "The point about 1 photon per molecule was the perhaps unstated assumption people often make that some molecules are stronger GH gases than other molecules, molecule for molecule which is incorrect"
No, it is completely CORRECT. The resonant absorption cross section can be defined on a per-molecule basis. Molecules have different cross sections depending on their molecular properties.
Peter
On the general 'debate'. You posted a challenge for someone to provide a proof of climate change theory. I am doing that. But is a jigsaw puzzle and I need to present all the pieces. Secondly I need to present those pieces clearly enough that there is no ambiguity without drowning in detail - after all, what I am presenting here is a precis of the theory. Then there are the objections you or Denis may raise. To satisfy your challenge I need to not just present the case, but also rebut any of your objections. And I must say Peter, so far you are throwing out many of the standard skeptic meme's, most of which have been well rebutted before. However to meet your challenge I have to respond to them. So its your call. I can respond to each objection you and Denis raise until it is resolved then move on. I can ignore all your comments and just plough on with my summary and respond to all your comments at the end. Or you can save your comments till the end and the go round robin on them at that point. Your call. The tone of your replies conveys impatience which suggests you may have underestimated the magnitude of what you were getting yourself into when you started the challenge. Like the current skeptic meme de jour, 'show me the 1 paper that proves AGW', you seem to think that this is some simple little exercise like writing a 500 word essay that will just 'explain it all'. You want the science and the empirical evidence. Unless you live near a supermarket with a very big parking lot there won't be room for all the semi-trailers.
Next this "the colder source will not raise the temperature of a warmer object." Peter, we are still discussing the GH Effect, not yet discussing changes in the GH Effect. So it is not being warmed! It's temperature is being maintained, not changed. Consider this account exercise. A packet of energy E leaves the Sun and is absorbed by the Surface. Increase of heat for the surface of E. Then it is radiated to the atmosphere. Reduction of the surface by E and increase of the atmosphere by E. Then it gets radiated back to the Surface. Surface Up by E, Atmosphere down by E. It bounces around in this cycle as many times as uou like. Then evetually the Atmosphere radiates E to space. It looks like this:
Surface 0, E, O, E, O, .... E, 0, 0
Atmosphere 0, 0, E, 0, E, .... 0, E, 0
Net change ZERO for both Atmosphere and Surface. The interchange between them has had no impact at all. Your thinking is only looking at one side of the ledger, and isn't considering the internal energy within something - Joe Postma's micro-states. Your thermos radiates heat as well as absorbing it. For something to absorb energy that it has aleady radiated, it obviously does have to radiate it first. So the energy content within your thermos FIRST HAS TO DROP. Then if it happened that that heat was re-absorbed, at most it would take the micro-states back to WHERE THEY WERE. So heat can't accumulate. Your thermos can't explode
As for Joe's description, he is correct, but an underlying assumption in his statement isn't included in the quote or he didn't spell out the assumption. "That the thermodynamic system is made up of only those two components - Hot and Cold" And in that restricted sense he is absolutely right. But we are dealing with a system of 4 components. The Sun - Hot, The Surface - Warm, the Atmosphere - Cool and Deep Space - Cold. If you look at any pair in the chain, each is valid thermodynamics. The Sun warms the Surface - OK. The Surface warms the atmosphere and is cooled by this - OK. The Atmosphere warms Deep Space & is cooled by this - OK. The Surface looses more microstates to the Atmosphere than it gains from it so net change there is just as Joe describes. The crux of all this is accounting for all the +ve and -ve changes and that NET values don't change. Your argument is based on an accounting error. Essentially you are trying to argue that the GH Effect would break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by using a breaking of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as the basis for your argument. The GH Effect DOESN'T break the 2nd Law precisely because we can't break the 1st Law.
I don't understand your point about Steven Schnieder. Yes he is making exactly the point I was which that radiative forcing is a logarithmic function of concentration and that as a result of not considering that stating that H2O is 10 times the concentration of CO2 suggests that H2O's radiative contribution is 10 times larger than CO2's, when in reality it is much less than this - 2.6 times.
"why then with this so called "amplifying effect" does the Ice core record show major cooling from warming with high levels of CO2"
I was hoping to avoid discussing these sort of ancillary evidence until after I had gone through the more basic stuff, so just a basic comment. Ice Age cycles are governed by a range of factors that have differing impacts at different points in the cycle.
- Milankovich Cycles - variations in the Earth's orbital behavior over time scales of 100,000 years or so. These are understood to be the initial triggers for moving in/out of a glaciation. They don's change the total amount of energy received by the Earth but do alter the relative amounts received between the two hemisphere's over a year. The main effect of this is in changing ice cover north vs south. Milankovitch cycles initiate changes but are not strong enough to drive the whole process.
- Albedo. This is about how much the Earth reflects back to space - reflect more and the Earth is colder. The biggest single factor affecting Albedo over a glacial cycle is variations in ice & snow cover. At the bottom of the last glaciation ice covered half the US, Canada, Europe and 1/2 of Russia, along with much more ocean - a significant change in albedo. This effect is more substantial than vegetation change on land for example because the albedo of vegetation isn't that different to rock when compared to the difference with ice & snow. Ice/Snow change will be different in the warming & cooling phases. When warming, snow range will react quickly but it takes several 1000 years to melt great ice sheets. And ice 100m thick is just as reflective as ice 1 km thick. So Albedo change during the warming phase has a lesser impact early and a greater effect later. During the cooling phase in contrast expanding snow range, long before ice sheets can form allows albedo change to be a bigger factor early in the cycle.
- CO2 out-gassing. This is the exchange of CO2 from the ocean to the air as ocean temperatures change. Warming oceans will release CO2 while cooling ones absorb it. And the frequently discussed 1000 lag is driven by the time lags imposed by ocean circulation rates to draw CO2 from deeper waters to be exchanged. Another factor also impacts on CO2 levels that I discuss under vegetation.
- Methane. Methane is release in any wet and or warm vegetation environment. It is described as a very powerful GH Gas because its levels are normally very low so small changes in total amount have a greater impact. During a warming phase Methane production will climb due to increased plant activity in a warmer climate so methane is a contributor to warming. During the cooling phase these sources are wound dow, but due to Methane's short residence
time in the atmosphere are probably a smaller contributor to change over the entire cooling cycle, having the biggest impact from their reduction at the beginning of the cycle.
- Vegetation patterns. As the cycles proceed vegetation cover & type changes changing albedo somewhat. Also this changes the hydrological cycle. Another factor is that ice sheets retreat the exposed rock is then slowly colonized by plants and forests over centuries & millenia. These start to act as a carbon sink in the latter stages of the warming, absorbing some of the CO2 being released from the oceans and slowing the impact of further CO2 increase. In the cooling phase, as cold temperatures start to restrict plant growth, some of this new vegetation starts to die and release its carbon back into the environment. This buffers the decline in atmospheric CO2 that would normally happen as the oceans take up more CO2.
- Clouds. Cloud cover, in the absence of other factors will tend to decline with cooling and increase with warming.
- Aerosols. As warming proceeds, some sources of aerosols are likely to grow - pollen from more vegetation and dust from more desertification. These aerosols will have some impact on their own and also on Clouds
- Water Vapor. Finally water vapor levels will tend to follow the impacts of all the other factors, magnifying them.
Each of these effects will have different impacts at different points in the cycle and at some points may work in opposition to each other with the final effect depending on the net impact of all of them.
For example, during the early warming the major factors are likely to be Milankovitch, CO2, Clouds, Methane Release. Later Ice, Vegetation, then aerosols kick in.
During the early cooling phase it is Milankovitch, Ice (or more accurately Snow), Methane decline. CO2 decline is a lesser factor at this stage because release of CO2 due to the die off of vegetation that grew after the ice sheets retreated counterbalances increased CO2 uptake by the oceans, holding CO2 levels up for a time.
So too, during the early cooling stage, fresh snow can produce cooling but this can be erratic until expanded further ice sheets start to form. And this process called 'Ice Sheet Nucleation' is erratic at first until they become established.
So, the common skeptic argument that the 1000 year delay suggests something 'wrong' with the AGW Theory isn't valid. That is what is expected. And even the difference between the CO2 patterns between warming & cooling phases is pretty much what is expected. Your point about the CO2 levels at the start of the cooling phase isn't considering all the factors
I don't understand. Why don't ou just go to the best authority on the topic and offer the money? Even just ask. I'm concerned that the whole idea is that you refuse to accept any evidence given.
Is the prize still up for grabs?
Can we get any more details on exactly what he wants? Will we also have to answer counter claims?
Well, back from tropical Townsville as the globalist control freaks here are frenetically trying to sell their anti-worker/poor/middle-class, anti progress and falsely named "carbon tax". I wonder if the stooges call H2O - oxygen ?
It was a record cold in Townsville, Im surprised that some moron didn't claim it to be "climate chaos" but if some did from a climate event, they would surely be able to be referred to as a "thinking mans idiot". Greens leader Bob Brown did so when he claimed AGW caused the tragedies of the Queensland floods and the Victorian bushfires.
It is interesting however and you could bet "London to a brick" that no warmist would publicly contradict such hyperbole, as none did with Browns opportunistic,"making hay whist the corpses rotted."
Now Glenn, I don't believe it, the typical backtracking of an AGW alarmist.
You bang on about warming the planet but when I point out the idiocy of cooler radiated protons then magically warming their source ; the earth, as shown by your oft quoted Climategate star, Mr Trenberth.
You then state -
" The commonest misrepresentation of it is "Heat can't flow from a cold source to a hot source".
Totally false.
The correct statement of the 2nd law in this form is "NET Heat can't flow from a cold source to a hot source". There is nothing stopping heat from flowing from cold to hot so long as there are other flows from Hot to cold that outweigh it so the NET flow is Hot to Cold. "
Utter crap, the wash up is still the same, cold cant heat warm !
Can the earth warm the Sun ?
Can my hot boots warm the fire that made them hot in the first place?
Do we use Ice to warm us ?
But then probably realising the silly argument you raised, you backflip to enforce that impossibility with this - and ironically, it's your DENIAL of warming !!!
As you then state -
"Next this "the colder source will not raise the temperature of a warmer object." Peter, we are still discussing the GH Effect, not yet discussing changes in the GH Effect. So it is not being warmed! It's temperature is being maintained, not changed."
(part 2 cont)
JESUS, MARY and JOSEPH ! - BINGO, the penny may have dropped, but even this non-warming maintenance theory would be nonsense because in reality , your so called "maintenance" would last only seconds and at one lousy molecule mans CO2 per 90,000 others- it aint gunna happen, its just a fantasy.
It's a volume thing mate.
You provide assumptions galore, without even any real theory.
Perhaps a good theoretical base would be to tell us the properties of CO2 that will allow it to hold on to heat to dominate the 97% strong greenhouse gas - H2O.
Then the mechanics of how it then dominates every other powerful driver of climate to warm the planet. ( my god it becomes sillier ever time I write it)
Then perhaps show the mechanics ( and no a Trenbath diagram is not fact, let alone a description of HOW) of how our 3 to 4% of CO2, which is only 3% of all greenhouse gases (and probably the weakest) , causes global warming or even to your retreated position of "maintenance". (which is NOT the AGW hypothesis.)
No red herrings about ozone or any other example but the clear cut capability of our minute amounts of the trace gas CO2, to do what you claim, drive a vast climate system.
(Why is this never done by the AGW high priests ?)
So far you have shown not one evidence that our emissions have or can do anything. No $10k mate, you've just trotted out the library of RealClimate propaganda, thats all.
I'm not here to debate at all, let alone stuff like the idiocy of trying to reverse the clear cut evidence of Vostock - it is really " arguing with idiots" stuff - Vostock shows - warming proceeds CO2 increase - FACT ! and I wont waste my time on your other "points". It just ain't "evidence' of AGW mate.
And I must point out another flaw, you state, "The Atmosphere warms Deep Space & is cooled by this - OK. "
Ok - thats the first time I have heard of the near vacuum of space being warmed. I wonder how you warm a vacuum ?
I would have thought a vacuum more an insulator as little heat loss through conduction could occur, only radiative loss.
Perhaps Denis could illuminate us ?
BC, mate, WHAT EVIDENCE !!!!!!! Supposition, assumption and wishful thinking are not evidence - tell me the evidence I cant accept so I can point out your lack of understanding.
If you want evidence of the contrary, just look up Vostock.
David, whats the matter pal, do you want a mythical 3rd party you address to answer ?
Am I the "he" you refer to and are you the "we"?
If so ask the question directly.
Peter - your answers highlight two things.
Firstly, you have a position based on your ideology which you clearly have no scientific training to support.
And from that point, secondly, no amount of evidence presented to you will be either understood or sufficient in your mind to win your challenge.
Glenn has taken an enormous amount of time to walk through lots of the pieces of the puzzle and you dismiss it out of hand with veiled insults and half cocked analogies. Very poor form.
Dear contributors,
Despite the 127 comments and responses so far, there has to date only been one complete submission (Hugh McLean).
A fatal flaw in that submission was identified (33C warming from greenhouse effect) but the author or others may wish to repair the flaw and re-submit. Also, my own understanding of the greenhouse effect has improved since that submission.
None of the other many interesting contributions constitute complete submissions.
Both Peter and I will independently give our attention to all non-frivolous submissions. After our responses, the contributor may wish to improve and re-submit or challenge a negative decision in court.
I offer to post all court proceedings that may arise.
So predictable, it appears the AGW faith is a near pathology.
GAramia highlights the incessant demand for obsequious deferment to our "betters" the new age "High Priests" - the scientists ! The holders of all knowledge, discernment and reason !
GAramia, sorry but it's not in my nature to be as compliant as you.
Your opinion that I should be a thoughtless lackey as I have no scientific training is your "appeal to authority" in the negative.
Well GAramia, I have no medical training but I can tell when I am sick - I know that must amaze you but I can do so without a MD.
This reminds me of a Train driver who on reporting a pedestrian fatality was castigated by a fool who stated, "How do you know he is dead, you are not a doctor?" he apologised by stating, "Sorry, I have the body but when I find the head I will leave the diagnosis to the doctor."
I also know when my vehicle is playing up without being a mechanic and can discern utter bullshit without a psychology degree.
Your assertion that, "….. secondly, no amount of evidence presented to you will be either understood or sufficient in your mind to win your challenge." is like AGW itself, it is the predictable hubris and bullshit of the AGW faithful.
As boring and unoriginal as he is, I can understand his meanderings, and they are devoid of the evidence required, a conclusive argument or even a good theory though he has backtracked on the IPCC idiocy (as he should) that as radiation from the earth heats a CO2 molecule, it then magically reradiates to heat the warmer earth !!!!!! These miraculous AGW mechanics would have the Earth heating the Sun with its radiated energy - the Perpetual energy mechanism - COLD HEATING WARM !!!!!!
I am not surprised you think highly of Glenn's assumptions but I am sick and tired of blowhards who just blab on and wont challenge and just use this site to exercise their sense of intellectual superiority.
He is just editorialising, and like you using the site for cheap propaganda. In fact thats all he has posted, tired old AGW assumptions, nothing new.
He may as well just post the RealClimate web site.
Why cant you dweebs just challenge ?
Why this need to incessantly editorialise ?
So pal, I will take you up on your intellectually barren assertion that I cant understand his "evidence".
If you can find one empirical evidence that mans CO2 drives climate warming in the ramblings of Glenn, then I will give you the $10,000.
Come on sunshine - back your claims up.
What empirical evidence of mans alleged misdeeds does he produce ?
p.s. I am not being vaguely insulting, it's the real thing, i'm tired of responding to AGW apparatchiks who are just time wasters with nothing to offer.
Either put a challenge or troll elsewhere.
To all:
Please see my relevant June 3, 2011, article on the present Climate Guy blog.
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2011/06/radiation-physics-constraints-on-global.html
It is a summary of the entire greenhouse warming matter as I understand it today.
Peter
You might care to read my comments to Denis on vsn 3 of his paper that he has linked to before reading any further.
All your diatribe about temperature and hot vs cold, small percentages of CO2 etc after everything I have tried to explain to you says you haven’t actually taken in a thing I have said. And your arguments against this are nonsense. But it seems you can’t see this. So there is no point me trying to explain those things further.
And for your information, Space does have a temperature. The Microwave background of space has a temperature of 2.7279 K as measured by the COBE mission.
However your failure to grasp these points doesn’t matter. As you said, Denis will be the judge in this challenge and on the things you are disputing he has already ruled. If you read his paper you will have read this section:
"However, given this same straightforward physics, sceptics (including me) need to stop saying things like:
• “CO2 is only a trace gas.” Yes, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is CO2’s contribution to the atmosphere’s longwave absorption. It is a question of actual cross section, not absolute concentration. Satelite spectroscopic measurements are
unambiguous that CO2 contributes 1/4 to 1/3 of all longwave absorption by the atmosphere (the rest being due to water vapour and clouds, depending on sky
conditions) and that CO2 absorption is saturated in its main absorption band.
• “It’s not principally a radiation balance effect.” Turn off the Sun and calculate
Earth’s temperature!
• “Heating the surface by a greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics.” No it does
not. Energy is not lost or created anywhere and local temperatures adjust towards steady state to balance energy fluxes. Period.
• “There is no such thing as a greenhouse effect.” While it is true that a“greenhouse” with longwave-transparent glass would heat up by retaining the air
heated by shortwave absorption inside the “greenhouse” it is also true that it heats up faster and to greater temperatures if the glass is longwave-opaque. A planet’s surface (and atmosphere) heats up without any greenhouse gas present but it heats up faster and reaches higher temperatures with greenhouse gases."
On most of the points you are disputing Denis has ruled. Against you. Your views are based on some serious misinformation about how the world around you works. If this isn’t enough to satisfy you, you might like to contact Professor Harry Watson at the Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Uni of Melbourne – I assume since your Stat’ Dec’ was signed at St Kilda Rd Police Station that you live in inner Melbourne. Harry Watson was one of the people who taught me Thermodynamics during my Engineering degree over 30 years ago. Run your opinions past someone who teaches thermodynamics for a living and see what he thinks. He can be contacted at harrycw@unimelb.edu.au
The only point of yours that Denis hasn’t discussed is the Ice Cores. And I gave you the explanation for why CO2 lags Temp in that context. CO2 contributes only about 40% of the total change over a complete glacial cycle and it is not the initiator of it. It acts as a feedback in that context. And that it would lag temperature was actually predicted before the ice core data confirmed it, in a paper by Lorius et al 1990. CO2 lagging Temperature rise is what is EXPECTED from the science of AGW.
@Glenn,
(1) Please avoid direct personal insults.
(2) I did not post your repetitions already found on this blog.
(3) I am not the "judge" of this challenge. You are. Make a submission, avoid unneeded blah blah if possible, read my opinion about your submission, get Peter's acceptance or refusal to pay, and take Peter to court if you don't agree in the event of a negative answer.
(4) Do it. If we need your other stuff we can read RealClimate or any number of other opinion venues.
>David, whats the matter pal, do you want a mythical 3rd party you address to answer ?
Am I the "he" you refer to and are you the "we"?<
Sorry I thought Dennis owned the blog and this post was about Paul?
Glenn,
your arguments highlight your absolute lack of empirical evidence that mankind's CO2 contribution (which is TRACE) drives our massive climate system.
There are dozens of contrary opinions on every one of your points.
Without evidence, what makes your unbacked assertions special ?
Remember this is not a Blog for debate but a "put up or shut up challenge". It demands empirical evidence.
Again you have failed to do so and have not displayed any intellectually challenging points, let alone a "conclusive argument".
Reread the challenge - back your claims with empirical evidence of mankind's CO2 driving warming.
So far you have not earned one cent, let alone 10k.
To date you have failed utterly.
p.s. your last point on Vostock makes true a prediction from the first post on this site from Michael Spencer, "…….but I suspect if they succeed they will also have demonstrated that black is the same as white, and that up is the same as down!"
Well done Michael, perhaps you should program "climate computer models." !
Nice to see such a civil and well resourced debate.
Peter, talk about a bet you cant lose. It's purely subjective whether someone can meet that criteria you set.
The experts are largely convinced (within reason and considering the risks of ignoring action), but those who have not studied the situation carefully are understandably and correctly much less likely to have a high confidence level. You, as one who has not studied carefully the details (have you?), being the sole judge makes it easy to see that the wager is yours to lose.
>The fact is that when the radiation is emitted to the atmosphere it is the result of its temperature, not the cause of its temperature.
Again any radiation from the earth cannot reheat the earth.
> These miraculous AGW mechanics would have the Earth heating the Sun with its radiated energy
Maybe the following examples will help explain how we can heat something from a hot source using indirect path that includes colder materials than the thing we are heating.
The sun heats up everybody. The sun is the source of basically all heat on earth. The side players (like the atmosphere) merely play with the photon energy the sun gave us in the past.
If I line up mirrors resting on an ice-water bath in order to concentrate regular ordinary sunlight (or even light from a flashlight) so as to create a focal point of heat (say, upon a small iron ball) to make it hundreds of degrees C, I have used a cold mirror to heat a warmer point in the atmosphere.
What I have done is to leverage energy that was released from the sun a while back (or from a wide area.. or both) and without letting that heat dissipate right away, "bounce" and "re-bounce" the photon energy back at that point being heated. I essentially use mirrors to gather up energy the sun released into a large area (and/or) over a long period of time and concentrated it at a focal point.. whose average kinetic energy will thus be very high.
The sun doesn't stop shining -- this is a key point. What we experience with a ghg atmosphere is not just the Watts the sun produced a few minutes back. Instead we also receive some radiation energy that "originated" in the sun hours and days ago. This extra radiation comes via an indirect route provided at least by ghg. Isotropic radiation means for every little bit that would have left the atmosphere right away if no ghg were present, instead a fraction is radiated back towards the earth.. to begin again the upward radiation cycle with potential interception+back radiation.. ad nauseum.
Think of an oven receiving constant energy from electricity. If we let that energy build up (eg, by reducing convection and conduction at the oven walls with a hot iron radiating inside), eventually, the oven may release heat through the insulated walls so as to match its incoming electrical energy, but the temperature inside will nevertheless be very hot because of the energy we first accumulated inside the oven and which remains accumulated inside at that steady state. Temperature is essentially a reflection of average energy per molecule. By storing more energy before the in/out power flux balance out, we preserve a higher temp even after that balance is established.
There is no violation of 2nd law because that applies to all sources/sinks of heat, which would include the sun itself and outer space. The sun is surely much hotter than the earth. [However, as a side point, 2nd law is a statement about the somewhat abstract total "entropy" in the universe, not about temperature. We do create temperatures here on earth that are hotter than the sun's believed temperature, but we don't claim to have reduced the entropy of the universe in so creating such super-hot temperatures.]
The atmosphere has been measured to radiate back a lot. This adds to the direct sun energy. Stefan-Boltzmann suggests a higher temp as a result. Note that we can't "prove" anything. We merely take readings and develop theories that appear to be consistent internally and agree with what we have measured. That is all any scientific "proof" is. General relativity, for example, was not measured or inspired by contemporary analysis until the 20th century. We don't prove Newtonian physics right, ever! We merely eventually exposed it as lacking. Yet Newton's laws did and continues to help us understand the world and make decent predictions that enable our current conveniences and avoid many deaths each year (planes don't fall out of sky repeatedly, etc).
Adam, you linked to a climatedepot page where Pielke allegedly rebuts 3 points from Real Climate.
Pielke would be "wrong" today (2012) on all three counts he mentioned (that comment was written in 2009).
Point 1, "rising sea levels": Rebutted by the same graph Pielke linked to http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.pdf . Pielke assumed a new short-term level trend had been established, but in 2012 we see that the longer term trend continued upwards.
Point 2, "the increase of heat stored in the ocean": Rebutted (and somewhat agreed to by Pielke) here http://www.skepticalscience.com/pielke-sr-sks-dialogue-final-summary.html . "Dr. Pielke's recollection here is simply wrong. We originally raised this issue because Dr. Pielke had claimed on his blog that OHC has not increased whatsoever ('~0 Joules', as he put it) since 2003...Note that while the heating of the upper 700 meters has slowed, the heating of the upper 1500 meters has not, nor has the heating of the upper ocean 'mostly stopped,' as Dr. Pielke incorrectly claims...However, as we have noted several times, there is nothing magical about the 700 meter depth. The ARGO data extends down to 1500 meters, and other studies have measured the yet deeper ocean layers. The data show that they have warmed...."
Point 3, "shrinking Arctic sea ice": Rebutted by the same graph Pielke linked to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg . Again, it appears he was focused on very short term measurements and misses the continued long term trend.
> Perhaps a good theoretical base would be to tell us the properties of CO2 that will allow it to hold on to heat to dominate the 97% strong greenhouse gas - H2O.
They work together. As mentioned by others, H2O condenses out of the atmosphere at a low altitude relative to CO2 and other gases. CO2 raising temps "a little" (and we aren't talking about 500 degrees, just 1 or 2) leads to more H2O being soluble in the atmosphere longer and higher. This extra H2O then multiplies the effect of the extra CO2.
I am not claiming here/now that there can't possibly be mitigating effects to what CO2 might do. I'm just explaining how a CO2 increased "greenhouse" warming can work with (not against) H2O greenhouse warming through a very simple mechanism based on old "established" science and which mechanism can reasonably be put on trial in a laboratory setting.
Precise measurements already suggest that CO2 is responsible for a fair amount of the absorption/emission at the earth's radiation spectrum. Thus, it is largely irrelevant whether this is occurring at 1 ppb or 999999999ppb. Since we already know CO2 is important, we are now considering what doubling it would do.
If we accept "greenhouse effect", then we see that the current CO2 level is an important contributor of tens of extra degrees C higher global average temp on earth (vs the no ghg atmosphere hypothetical). From this baseline and known potential warming effect, we try to anticipate what doubling CO2 might do. A conclusion by the experts that doubling CO2 at our current levels leads to a degree or two higher temperature seems within a reasonable range to a non-expert like myself. Extra water vapor in the hotter atmosphere can then have a further contributory effect to the final warming experienced.
> It is not the percent of the GH-effect specific to a dominant GH gas that is the most important: It is the degree of over saturation
I think this is a small player in the greenhouse effect.
Assume CO2 is fully saturated. In fact, let's clump all ghg together and assume they are all saturated.
If we double their concentration, then whatever absorption level might be reached by say 100 meters, now can be achieved at a lower altitude. This might even be as low as 50 meters.
Beer-Lambert law states that path length and absorption multiply to produce a value whose logarithm varies directly with radiation intensity level. If we double the concentration of ghg, we double absorption. Thus, *doubling* ghg concentration at *half* the path length will lead to the same effect (to first order magnitude).
Aside from this theory of emissivity of ghg gases, Hottel, Leckner, and others have measured these values and their results are used in engineering/physics text books. See for example figure 10-25 on page 342 of, Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK. on googlebooks: http://books.google.com/books?id=lLT-aKLTxkQC&pg=PA826&lpg=PA826&dq=Modest,+Michael+F.+Radiative+Heat+Transfer-Second+Edition.+2003.+Elsevier+Science,+USA+and+Academic+Press,+UK.&source=bl&ots=7k4Sxqi87s&sig=DqLHm-TPB9S-a3ICO2YSyvX-Yko&hl=en&ei=nsfaTvGiFZDAgQf154GpBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=paL&f=false . The data tables/graphs of measurements (with some extrapolations) don't differentiate between the variations in the two factors (a) concentration (aka partial pressure) and (b) path length, if their product is a given value. [It treats 1 cm at .0001 atm the same as .0001 cm at 1 atm.]
Now, if we achieve the same absorption at a lower altitude, we will ultimately end up with greater back radiation to the earth's surface (at least in a simple model of the atmosphere), which will result in higher earth surface temperature.
[We may want to "prove" that the back radiation would be greater if more radiation is absorbed quicker, but this seems like an intuitive expectation. See the experiment proposal below, and we would also throw together some of the math details once we have a simple model we believe would model the atmosphere or this gas effect to first order.]
Again, aside from theory, measurements of back radiation near the ground (ie, upward facing DLR as measured with a pyrgeometer) have increased over the years as the temperature has increased. This supports Stefan-Boltzmann and correlates strongly with CO2 increases.
We have an experiment we can perform in a laboratory: Repeat the following trials: measure the intensity of a narrow beam of radiation (in the IR range) before and after it passes through a gas tube at 1 atm. Do this for differing levels of CO2 concentrations (eg, 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%), keeping in mind that higher concentrations and longer tube path length are more likely to yield results above the noise level. Insert a pyrgeometer next to where the beam originates (the "front") facing the back of the tube. Alternatively, we might improve noise levels if we use a shorter wave beam and a gas that can absorb it (eg, ozone for uv light). We might consider that the effect at uv wavelengths with ozone generalizes to other wavelengths and gases. A source of error if we use IR is that the whole structure will radiate at the IR level. We might want to use materials with lower emissivities (although these would have to hold the CO2 airtight), for example, some chromatone metallic paint finishes other other paints can bring down emissivity values a fair amount http://www.infrared-thermography.com/material-1.htm . Then we compare results with calculations from theory to gain confidence in the particular theories as they might be applied to the whole earth climate.
Jose_X ...
It's been a while since someone has thought they might take Peter on! Now, I have little doubt that Peter will respond personally - and most definitely, but I have to say Jose that you are quite wrong about the matter being subjective. Far from it! The challenge is quite specific.
However, be that as it may, I would like to point out that the singular of 'criteria' is 'criterion'. It is fascinating how many people get confused over this. One could say that it is a phenomenon!
As a side-show, those of you interested in the (somewhat irrelevant) basic physics arguments should consider these posts:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2011/12/most-downloaded-free-access-scientific.html
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2012/01/ray-pierrehumberts-peer-review-of.html
Denis, I just did a "quick" pass through the paper
you
wrote
http://ia700604.us.archive.org/8/items/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingfor-submission-plus-9.pdf .
Before reading that I also read a few articles you wrote and some of their comments.
The "bad" news (from your perspective) is that I trust climate science possibly a fair amount more than you do (including the theoretical and practical value in being able to nail down the parameters in more complex partial differential equation based models), and I am critical of some of the contents of various webpages you have written on climate science.
Another piece of bad news is that I am fairly sure I will have "complaints" when I have confidently understood the details of that paper above.
The "good" news is that, as one of two options, I have recently been looking in a similar direction as you: to come up with a simple model that solves a steady state scenario via a system of algebraic equations based on thin shell(s) atmosphere/surface model. An important ingredient in getting that model to work is an accurate set of values for emissivities. [I lean towards using Hottel/Leckner results or even the Beer-Lambert law]. I wrote a comment about this multi-shell approach recently on a webpage that also used just this type of shell model (and in fact inspired me to consider it and take it a few extra steps). See the Jose_X comments at the bottom of this page http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/second-law-and-its-criminal-misuse-as.html . I'm actually a little curious to know if you had seen that page before (or to know if that shell model provides a common model technique used by many when trying to solve this sort of problem).
A bit of bad news is that I already have a number of changes in mind to your 2 layer model, starting with finding a larger number of layers (to hit some sweet spot). I am more than willing to write a simple computer program or use an online eqn solver as mentioned in that comment on rabett's page, so I don't feel restrained to 2 layers. [Unlike with generic differential equations (eg, using time and space partial derivatives) of increasing complexity and which may exhibit chaotic behavior, using a computer to solve a system of a large number of linear equations is hardly extra work beyond solving the 3 equations case.] I disagree with the CO2 saturation argument I think you used on that paper. [An earlier comment I posted on this page already gave an argument for why I think saturation is not a main concern.] I will look more closely at your cross section discussion and all the other details, and I suspect I won't fully buy into it.
On the good news side, I respect your scientific perspective in a lot of ways even when I disagree with the conclusions. Also, I am encouraged by your results with that shell model to get accurate results (although there possibly might be some luck from oversimplifications that might not hold in general), so I think that if it does have flaws there is a decent chance it can be "patched up" to provide a robust simple model that can be used as a bar complex models should pass as well as be used to create simple computer animated-tools for teaching and exploratory purposes.
To return to the bad news side, I respect that convection may play a significant role and that QED analysis of molecule/photon interactions might also be necessary to get a truly robust result (at least if we care about weather predictions and not just the much more low resolution climate predictions). I have not studied the results of radiative transfer theory.
(to be continued)
(continued)
And a last bit of bad news is that I already looked at a different attempt by someone else to use strictly linear algebraic equations to deal with the 2xCO2 question, and I felt in that case that by ignoring time evolution the author didn't realize they were guessing certain steady state values, meaning some unsupported and likely rather incorrect assumptions were made; hence, I trod carefully around any potential claim that a given linear algebra solution does in fact provide an accurate enough answer to this 2xCO2 temp/sensitivity question.
OK, well, thanks for the links and for providing an interesting paper to read (and one I think I can understand). I should respond to it hopefully in the near future and hopefully with useful critique/suggestions.
FWIW, my email is ,ho zeld a, @yaho o,.com without spaces or commas.
As of this moment the last 2 part comment I wrote a few hours back hasn't showed up on the blog (yet). Maybe I should explain the motivation for it. It was a reply to Denis Rancourt's last comment but, like it, was off topic. I didn't mean to sound presumptuous. Denis presents an analysis of 2xCO2 that suggests this challenge has no solution. Denis is also helping judge this challenge. Because of this and because I found the paper interesting for various reasons, I wanted to share various views, including that I think the paper is probably deficient in some ways despite being correct on most points (I'll have to study it and not just skim it). I also got the impression Denis would appreciate a well thought out critique of it. And if I am able to provide one, it would partly relate to my earlier responses to comments Denis and Peter had already made on this thread... So I don't think I was entirely off topic.
Hello Jose, sorry mate I cant take you seriously at all, you arrive with a bag of red herrings, a platoon of strawmen and of course excuses - anything and everything BUT A CHALLENGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a "CHALLENGE SITE." Not a park to walk an ego in.
I'm tired of timewasters like you.
You need an assumed name to hide behind ?
That is unless your Malcolm's brother and you either through hubris or ignorance attempt to cast my reasonable ask as near impossible .
Because it could be "subjective" ?
Thats weak mate, really weak.
Be a man Jose, take the risk anyway !
Post a challenge even though you think the games rigged, you wont lose an arm nor even graze a knee, I assure you !
So give it go then, its as if one lousy empirical fact is a Soviet State secret with you lot - its risible !
Pulling my own teeth is far easier ! ( At least its possible !)
Cant you play unless you know the result in advance eh ?
As if empirical facts are that subjective but I did enjoy how you reveal your "unconscious realism" when you stated, "Peter, talk about a bet you cant lose. It's purely subjective whether someone can meet that criteria you set."
So you know that I cant lose, its because AGW as you well know, is just a myth, not because I merely ask for a "satisfying explanation based on observable and measurable data "- comprehend that now Jose ?
Not too daunting I'd hope ?
So I'm not going to even dignify your interminable unmeasured, unsupported theory's with responses they are nothing more than dishonest and tiresome diversions.
Even my or Denis's opinions don't count, its not a debate, its for you lot to confirm your ridiculous hypothesis !
Can you even show how CO2 in its entirety has ever driven Earths climate let alone our current contribution whilst we are at historically low levels of the demonised gas ?
Again its not too hard Jose, maybe you can show us the geological data that indicates how CO2 has driven the earths climate throughout the ages ? No ?
How about in the modern temperature record ? No ?
Vostock and Nth greenland Ice cores no good I suppose ?
See mate, any of those corresponding would win you $10k and you think thats "subjective" ?
So Jose, an old truism "piss or get off the pot."
p.s. Denis, have you seen the clip where NASA's AGW worker bee, James Hansen says the "seas will boil " because of our CO2 ?
Straight jacket stuff and Comic Gold ! Reeks of desperation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/quote-of-the-week-dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-unhinged/
Peter - There are many recent global warming attribution studies that show the human and natural contributions to global warming, for example:
Lean and Rind (2008)
Huber and Knutti (2011)
Gillett et al. (2012)
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)
In all cases the observed warming is predominately anthropogenic. In the more recent periods examined the natural contributions are mostly negative, meaning the anthropogenic contribution is greater than 100%.
Peter, I submit these papers for your challenge. I look forward to your comments on the specifics of these papers.
Kate apologies for delay, i've been otherwise occupied,
firstly, could you please, - "As stated in the Statutory Declaration, all submissions for the “$10K Climate Challenge” must be made using the submitter’s true identity ...."
Secondly, in short Kate, pasting references is not by any definition "a conclusive argument based on empirical facts".
With all due respect you are the challenger, not I, so a glib cut and paste of of references to papers wont do at all.
It would be appreciated that you, as opposed to I, puts in the time and effort by exposing, highlighting and posting here the papers 'empirical facts' and publishing either their or your own conclusive argument as a challenge.
Kate, I would have been a Rhodes scholar if I could have answered questions with a mere reference !
I don't have the inclination to frame your challenge for you, thats your task and it would take away my will to live by having to troll through their stuff to vainly attempt to find the empirical facts you claim are there.
Surely as an AGW supporter you must of course be able to source and repeat them as quickly and easily as a Priest does 'holy writ'.
I'm not interested in the $10 Grand... but perhaps you could try some little experiments and research to discover some funny things C02 does that could or couldn't add credibility to the C02 debate...
1. Putting salt in water before freezing it helps the ice stay frozen longer... if the polar ice melts it weakens the sea ice which warms the ocean quicker and speeds up the ice melting...
2. Why does a burning candle go out when a glass is covered over it... more importantly what replaces the oxygen inside the glass ?
3. What gases produce heat when a flame burns ? Why is heat produced? Can a flame burn without heat if any of those gasses are removed?
4. Trees are being removed at amazing rates - trees feed on carbon dioxide. At the same time the population is increasing and we need to consume more. That requires the release of more Co2. If the population is growing and trees are reducing the gap is widening between Co2 build up from human activity and the only natural filtration system to remove that Co2 - Trees.
5. According to one source, It takes 17.5 trees per person to produce sufficient oxygen for survival but it takes 20 trees per person to consume the CO2 each person generates (according to NASA)... If we have less trees and more people - the balance is going off track...
Just a few of many questions going through my head that makes me ask the question - What if climate change is all a hoax and we end up creating a better world for nothing...
Sarcasm intended!
Eric if you are not interested in the $10k , I'm not interested in spending time on your meaningless comments, your just another time waster.
It does not surprise me in the least that you believe manipulation, deceit and fraud a can create a better world.
Machiavellian tactics do tend to be favoured by those with a totalitarian bent.
You can't better worlds that way, you create dystopias.
And mate as for adding, "sarcasm intended" after the stuff you wrote, I can only add, "Own Goal Eric."
The link to peter's silliness.doc is broken. Not that he is going to pay up anyway, he'll find some way to weasel out of it using subjective definitions of "conclusive", "empirical" or "money.
No doubt this has been posted before but I'm not going to scroll through and look for it, Peter Laux challenged me to post this here so here it is. I guess he is too busy with his own work in atmospheric chemistry to address it where we were discussing it, and he wants you to do it for him Climate Guy.
Downward IR, measured in cloud free conditions, coming from GHGs (http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Philipona2004_IncreasingGhE_GRL.pdf). If this is not warming the surface then what is it doing? Go.
Graham,
Here's is some reality for you to ponder, but first you will need to download a little slide show called "Reconsidering Climate Change" from www.galileomovement.com.au/downloads.php and then, if you are brave enough to take a look, I invite you to contemplate the most interesting photograph on slide 77. Having done so, perhaps you might be able to explain why it is you think theory trumps facts?
And from slides 73 to 77 there is a mind-boggling array of information on this overall subject. After you've checked all of this information then if you continue to want to try to take Peter's money all I can say is 'Good Luck!'
By the way, you might find just a trifle more information on the overall subject of so-called 'anthropogenic global warming' that could be ever so mind opening. Unless, of course, you subscribe to that regrettably popular old adage "My mind's made up; don't confuse me with facts!"
By the way, if you do look then you might just discover that there is some very good news due to technological developments in both energy generation and REAL pollution remediation.
But then if you won't look I doubt very much that you will pursue Peter into Court either ....
@graham:
Re: Philipona et al. GRL 31(2004)L03202
I have read the paper you cite.
The paper reports on measurements at eight stations in an atmospherically simple model area in the Swiss Alps. In those circumstances, the authors were able to provide quantitative evidence of the *atmospheric* greenhouse effect.
In my view, the atmospheric greenhouse effect, as a real physical phenomenon, is not in doubt. Therefore, the authors engaged in an academic exercise which validates their measurement and data treatment methods.
Whether the Earth's *planetary* greenhouse effect is such as to produce a measurable increase in mean surface temperature of the planet attributable to the increase in CO2 concentration of the last 100 years is a different question.
The best answer to the latter question is "no". A simple physics demonstration of this negative answer is here: http://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect
Whether the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning is also another valid question. In my opinion, the isotopic studies have not provided a conclusive answer to the latter question.
I have a form of proof of how burning of fossil fuel could cause global warming. The rules did not stipulate from WHERE the offending fossil fuel burners originated. The scenario goes as such:- On an alien planet, a theory arose that CO2 caused their planet's temperature to rise to catastrophic levels. As a consequence, they virtually destroyed their once vibrant economy to trap the CO2 byproducts from their once great industrialized civilization and from their atmosphere to send by space ship to be dumped in to the atmosphere of planet Earth. They hoped that the sudden increase in CO2 in our atmosphere would cause a catastrophic positive feedback loop of global warming on Earth so they could take over this planet when the militarily powerful yet rather stupid humans had been cooked to death. They would then use the technology they had perfected to remove the CO2 from the planet they had polluted to take it over as the dominant species. And indeed, the huge quantities of CO2 did indeed cause some warming in Earth's atmosphere, but extremely small, for the aliens had forgotten the simple high school equation PV=nRT, where temperature is proportional to pressure. The aliens had been very foolish indeed to not investigate other planets with atmospheres to observe the painfully obvious phenomenon of altitude from the surface (and thus lower pressure)producing reliably decreasing temperatures. They did have several other planets in that solar system to verify this, but they were also a rather foolish race, believing the science to be settled. Planet earth was thus blessed with substantial food for the photosynthetic species of plants that did grow on planet earth that could transform the CO2, with sunlight to create the carbon frameworks of which all known life forms on planet earth were based.The aliens, upon returning to planet earth hoping to find the charred remains of the formerly dominant human species found that much of the CO2 had been converted to oxygen, the planet lush with plant life and life of all types flourishing with only the most marginal increase in temperature. This was a profound and devastating discovery, for their own planet ,having become severely deprived of CO2 become quite devoid of plant life, which could not cope with such low levels of CO2. Of course, we cannot find these aliens- they died off. They could not even use their sophisticated CO2 trapping technology to take their CO2 back from planet earth-our plants had taken it.
@High Treason: Your PV=nRT comment is incorrect. This equation and the associated equilibrium phenomenon are not the reason that temperature decreases with increasing altitude in a planetary atmosphere. The later so-called "lapse rate" arises from a combination of a thermodynamic effect in a gravitational field and, at high altitudes, radiation balance (absorbing/emitting) in the gas. The rest of your comment is entirely plausible and not inconsistent with scientific principles! :)
High Treason, your hypothesis is as reasonable as any I've heard from the Climate Mystics & infinitely more plausible than James Hansen's, Venus analogy !
There is certainly no less empirical evidence of an alien plot than there is of our emissions of "plant food" driving the slight 20th Century warming.
Peter,
Planets with atmospheres are warmer than they would be without their atmospheres. If you remove or change the atmosphere of a planet you will change its climate. This is established science and not in dispute anywhere.
Additionally, the properties of atmopspheric CO2 are well known and measurable.
As Dr Roy Spencer said,
"It’s hard ...for me to imagine that increasing CO2 won’t cause some level of warming.
I would remind folks that the NASA AIRS instrument on the Aqua satellite has actually measured the small decrease in IR emission in the infrared bands affected by CO2 absorption, which they use to “retrieve” CO2 concentration from the data.
Less energy leaving the climate system means warming under almost any scenario you can think of. Conservation of energy, folks. It’s the law."
Basically, the reverse of your proposition is true. That is, there is no evidence that changing our atmopshere won't change our climate.
@Ayden:
An atmosphere on a planet can cause the planet's surface to be warmer OR colder than it would be in the absence of the atmosphere.
It can go in either direction, depending on the atmosphere and its processes. Convection carries heat from the surface, evaporation has a large latent heat, clouds can provide a large albedo, etc.
The whole thing is quite complex, and also depends on the properties of the planet's surface and how the surface is transformed by the presence of the atmosphere and its processes...
Most of the known processes occurring on Earth have a far greater impact (orders of magnitude) on surface temperature than changes in CO2, and will drown the effect of CO2 alone. That is the point.
I calculated these things here: Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect
Denis, I'll have a read of your paper.
In the meantime, what are some of the "known processes occurring on Earth" that you are referring to when you say that these have a far greater
impact on surface temperature than changes in CO2.
Regards, Ayden
Denis, for your amusement, a classic example of the CO2- centricity of many in the alarmist camp.
I had a recent posting on Facebook of a nom de plume called Duchess Judy John Byatt (Why do they always hide ? ) stating ;- "I gave him empirical proof, The Current RF for CO2 is 1,68Wm2 IPCC AR5 RF Chart, being a scam merchant he refuses to pay up and wants me to take him to court for a lousy $10,000."
Thats it - poof, just like that, a one line statement is empirical evidence that mankind's fossil fuel utilisation drives climate warming ..... sigh .... the RF of CO2 at that ..... groan ...... it serves me right for being on Facebook I suppose.
He/She like all the rest on that medium will not challenge here, I guess the shame stays recorded if they did.
She/He actually demanded that YOU come to Facebook to argue for MY $10k !
AGW is classic Homocentricity, it appears egocentricity as well with some !
Its approaching 4 years Denis and not one real challenge !
This site is a joke
WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THE $10,000
$10K Climate Challenge
Peter Laux, Locomotive Engineman from Australia, “will pay $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”
Peter laux, you cannot prove it,
Duchess Judy John Byatt, I can prove it in a single sentence , “ The RF for CO2 is currently 1.68Wm2”
Peter Laux And the champion clothhead comment of the day came from the Duchess Judy John Byatt who claimed that the RF of CO2 was empirical evidence of mankind's CO2 Driving Global warming !
It is a statement of the RF of CO2, nothing more, yet under the myopic view of CO2-phobia is indisputable evidence !
Duchess Judy John Byatt Peter Laux ""statement of RF for CO2 nothing more" thank you will file that one
SO ALL WE NEED NOW IS FOR THE CLIMATE GUY TO ACCEPT THE CONSERVATION OF MATTER AND THE $10,000 IS MINE , YOUR PERSONAL CHEQUE WILL BE FINE PETER
The burden of proof rests on the one that makes the claim.
So, is it John or Judy?
Do you really think that a couple of words counters all the evidence AGAINST your side of the debate....Still, if they accept your evidence they can send the cheque to J M Byatt 11 Santuary Way, Cooloola Cove QLD 4580
or contact your phone no 617 5488 0836.
Have I got that right, Cooloola Fool?
Peter,
Have you heard of satellites?
Dr Roy Spencer explains,
"I would remind folks that the NASA AIRS instrument on the Aqua satellite has actually measured the small decrease in IR emission in the infrared bands affected by CO2 absorption, which they use to “retrieve” CO2 concentration from the data. Less energy leaving the climate system means warming under almost any scenario you can think of…"
To put it in plainer english for you, we have satellites. They measure the warming effect that increased CO2 has on our climate system.
Peter Laux, i would suggest that you read your stat dec again, all requirements have been fully met, thanks to Geoff Brown of the NCTCSP,
nowhere in you stat dec does Dennis even get a mention
the challenge has been won , screen shots of your latest foot in mouth comments at CCD have been printed, pay up now
Peter Laux please provide the details for your lawyer so i may proceed with the claim as per the requirements of your stat declaration, all requirements have now been met,
signed john byatt as per Geoff browns details above
Peter you seriously need to understand your statutory declaration, you have not restricted it to one claim, once one claim was made in court and won then many others could also claim.
Apart from you admission of the current RF for CO2 which on its own would cost you the case, the Australian and NZ courts uphold scientific authority as we have recently seen in the NZ met data case, what I would like you to understand that this IPCC statement would be upheld over some train drivers fantasy, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html
Please provide details of lawyer who will be defending your claim
reading the nonsense here from dennis about lindzen etc then it appears that only a court case would settle it
Peter laux refuses to reveal his address and details of his lawyer so i can make a claim , is this just a fraud? john byatt details as per geoff brown comment
Peter Laux's reply after asking for his address and lawyers details
Peter Laux Snicker, I certainly wont hold my breath waiting for a legal challenge, Id die a million deaths !
So dream on, Don Quixote, telling me to get a lawyer.
What for ?
To play to your empty grandstanding & fantasies.
Stick to doing what the CO2 neurotic do best, bluffing and scaring children by conveying your dystopic catastrophic vision that puts fear in children's souls and darken their futures.
I will tell you exactly what will happen and what you have absolutely no control over , what you cannot do - you will not take me to court. Indisputable fact with 100% certainty. Remember that as I will remind you every day ! Every day I will ask "Where is the summons ?" , the summons that will unfortunately, never come.
I can only wish you would take me court , .... sigh ..... thats a dream of mine, CO2 phobia in court, championed by a Climate Clown, a grandiose exponent of human pride & hubris.
So Il Duce, please take me to court for 'Heresy' or whatever for not following W̶r̶i̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶P̶a̶p̶a̶l̶ ̶I̶n̶f̶a̶l̶i̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ IPCC reports assumptions , as being empirical evidence of Homocentric Global Warming.
It took me ages & extensive mockery to get you to try to challenge & then you merely posted anonymous idiocy as a challenge. (is it a shame thing ?).
So do we have to hear your interminable droning of you being a " gunna " yet again ?
The louder and longer you bray donkey , the more obvious is your vacuum.
In regard to that monkey scrawl you posted on the challenge site, I'm wondering whether to give you a response or just leave it open so as to further damage the tarnished fraud of Homocentric Global Warming.
peter , you have stated that you would love a court challenge,
I cannot issue a summons, what is required is for me to claim the prize legally through your lawyer and receive back a legal notification that you will not honor your stat dec, only then could a court summons be sent
again please provide your address and details of your lawyer
signed john byatt
I too would like to claim the $10,000 (as well as, or after, John Byatt)
Peter - just a lawyer's contact details, as per John's request, would suffice for me too.
Dennis, as you've hosted this, would you make sure Peter gets on to providing these details? My email is andrewdothoskinsatlivedotcom.
cheers,
Special instructions for trolls who allege an intent to litigate, while not having demonstrated any viable argument:
1. Hire a process server in Australia.
2. Here is one: Contact for process server!
3. Send me proof that Peter has been served with your statement of claim and that the claim has been filed in court (my email is not hard to find).
4. Then I will lift the block that I now impose on litigation trolls and you can report on this site how your litigation is going.
It's that simple.
Amazing that both pseudo-claimants, without a legitimate claim, can't even get Denis' name right.
The gangs all here. I'd give the money to John Byatt; but since his "proof" is counterfeit I would give him Monopoly money.
Glenn says:
"Surface 0, E, O, E, O, .... E, 0, 0
Atmosphere 0, 0, E, 0, E, .... 0, E, 0"
For a moment there I thought he was singing Old McDonald Had a Farm.
Anthony Cox has given some legal advice about a challenge, and more....
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/peters-bet-10k-challenge.html
Geoff,
So obviously radiative forcing in that chart on Anthony's post looks at the contribution of Anthropogenic and Natural forcings in the climate system. And from that chart the overwhelming contribution has been Anthropogenic and within that the climate impact has overwhelmingly come from CO2.
And we know the exponential growth of the human population and corresponding increase in burning of fossil fuels is the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. We measure it.
And we directly measure the warming contribution of this CO2 - as my quote from Roy Spencer acknowledges (see above).
All in all, 7 billion humans are influencing the atmosphere of our planet. If you change the atmosphere of a planet you change it's climate. We can, and are, measuring this change.
With regard to Ayden Harvis,
Whether AGW theory is real or not, and although whether we can measure world temperatures etc more accurately than in the past, which is very likely, we may never know what the proper temperature of the world should be, because we are not very good at measuring the temperature of the past.
We do know that in periods of high CO2 that the temperature was lower than today and vice versa but it is impossible to tell whether the alleged current warming is usual because of anthropogenic CO2. There cannot be any AGW at the moment because for the last 15 years there has been no warming. By definition, you cannot have AGW when warming is not positive.
As an unscientific aside, from my personal experience, if you have ever been in a major earthquake, the first thing that strikes home is how, compared with mother earth, we are so insignificant and powerless. This makes one realise how futile we really are in taming or influencing nature.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
I have not read this whole comment thread.
So, if I may define some parameters:
Demonstrating AGW means showing conclusively the specific fraction of a degree of global warming [currently around 0.7ºC] that is directly attributable to human CO2 emissions.
The fact that the planet has warmed at the same time that human emissions are rising is proof of nothing.
There must be a direct cause-and-effect mechanism quantified, in which the fraction of the global warming [≈0.7ºC, over the past century and a half] has been MEASURED, and that empirical measurement shown to be caused specifically by human emissions, and not by some other cause, or mix of causes.
In other words: a challenger must show conclusively that human CO2 emissions are the measured cause of at least part of the global warming — and they must show exactly how much of the 0.7º rise is caused by human CO2. They must quantify it in such a way that it shows conclusively that it was caused by human-emitted CO2. Assertions are not enough.
It may be a small part of the rise, or most of the rise, or all of the rise — or it might be zero. But speculating amounts to a baseless assertion. There are far too many baseless assertions in the AGW debate.
If the believers in AGW cannot quantify the human portion directly attributable to global warming, then their belief is merely a conjecture; an opinion.
AGW may or may not exist. But if it does, it must be measurable. Anything else is... hot air. Because science is nothing without verifiable, real world measurements.
https://www.facebook.com/john.turmel/posts/10153312392952281 is my $100 raise that temperature was now cooler than 1998 to Prof Christopher Keating's 30,000 bet that no one could prove climate does not change. Of course, no one says climate does not change but he had to back down from the raise and delete my post. Nice to see $10 Grand flashed in their faces.
To physicists and those who want to understand what's happening ...
You are correct in believing carbon dioxide cannot warm the Earth's surface: in fact it cools, but probably by less than 0.1 degree.
But I wonder if you really understand the explanation as to why the Earth's mean surface temperature is in fact warmer than the Sun's direct radiation could make it. This is very obviously also the case for Venus where the surface receives only about a tenth of the direct solar radiation that we do, and yet is over 450°C.
I have had on offer a AU $5,000 reward since the publication of my book "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" in March 2014 (available through Amazon) and my reward is for anyone proving the physics in the book to be significantly incorrect and also producing a counter study which, with similar methodology to mine in the Appendix of the book, shows that, instead of cooling, the so-called "greenhouse gas" water vapor warms the surface in the order of about 20 to 30 degrees for each 1% in the troposphere, as is implied by the IPCC.
My book is based on extensive research that I had previously published in two papers in 2012 and 2013, all based on correct physics.
Unlike others, I have not only shown why the radiative forcing "greenhouse" conjecture is wrong, but I have also explained just precisely how it is that a planet's surface does receive the required thermal energy in order that its temperature normally rises during its daytime on the sunlit side, offsetting the inevitable cooling at night.
The required thermal energy cannot be (and is not) supplied by radiation. It is supplied in accord with the laws of physics as I have shown based upon the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am probably the first in the world to have correctly explained planetary surface temperatures (and even sub-surface temperatures) and the necessary energy supply mechanisms.
(continued)
This explanation is the last nail in the greenhouse coffin, and so I urge you to look into it carefully. You will not defeat the fraudulent hoax with analysis of temperature data, because there will be some warming before about 500 years of natural cooling starts, probably within 100 years or so. You will also not defeat it unless you understand the one and only correct explanation of planetary temperatures and energy flows - which is what I have explained.
I wonder if, for example, you know that the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus is hotter than Earth's surface, even though it is about 30 times further from the Sun. No significant solar radiation reaches down there through 350Km of the Uranus troposphere, and there's no surface there anyway. Likewise Earth's tropospheric temperatures are not in general the result of direct solar radiation warming the surface which then just cools off. On Venus the Sun's direct radiation can only raise the temperatures in the upper troposphere and above where such temperatures are not already above about 400K. Such radiation simply cannot raise the temperature of lower regions or the surface where such temperatures are already around 700K and more. So you need to think about why it is that a location on the equator of Venus does warm back up by about 5 degrees during its four-month-long sunlit period, having cooled by a similar amount at night, which cooling must happen to some extent. It takes an input of thermal energy to raise a temperature, so how does that energy get into the Venus surface? Radiation from the less-hot troposphere of Venus cannot raise the surface temperature. So what does?
For more information you may read my website http://climate-change-theory.com and the papers linked at the foot of the 'Evidence' page.
I would like this comment to be drawn to the attention of any physicist with a sound knowledge of thermodynamics and an understanding of entropy maximization that occurs as unbalanced energy potential dissipate. Readers without such understanding may find the website http://entropylaw.com helpful.
I am happy to answer questions which pertain to the content of my book and papers and clearly demonstrate that these documents have been studied.
@Doug Cotton:
Doug, on your website (http://www.climate-change-theory.com/) you are simply describing the known phenomenon of "lapse rate" arising from convective atmospheric cooling with a heated surface in a gravitational field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
This in no way disproves the separate known phenomenon of greenhouse warming of a planetary surface. You cannot disprove something by asserting that something else also occurs. (You also confuse atmospheric temperature gradient with mechanisms establishing the earth-surface temperature.)
The correct calculation of earth's mean surface temperature takes both convective cooling (of the surface) and radiation-balance (including greenhouse effect) into account, as here:
https://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect
Find a fundamental physics error in the latter calculation, then you will have made a "great discovery".
The small group of deniers that insists that the planetary greenhouse effect mechanism itself does not exist is wrong. Completely wrong. It is the dominant mechanism of earth-surface warming above the no-atmosphere value. There is no doubt about this. The statement of "no warming from a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere" is correctly viewed as crazy and does a disservice to the debate about warming.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...
Anthony Cox, Laux's lawyer declares it a scam
Peter Laux has offered $10000 to anyone who can produce empirical evidence proving man-made global warming [AGW]. Peter’s offer is in the form of a Statutory Declaration, which is neither here nor there. Peter’s wording is:
I offer you $10,000.00 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming
This is an invitation to treat which differs fundamentally from a contract and being bound by contractual terms. An invitation to treat can be thought of as a prelude to entering a contract and being bound by contractual terms. Basically Peter is inviting people to submit offers about the proof for AGW which he may then convert into contractual terms.
Peter Laux accepts warming due CO2
https://www.facebook.com/groups/climate.discussion/permalink/563209220513908/
Post a Comment