tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post762204703391131597..comments2023-10-17T08:02:47.368-04:00Comments on DENIS RANCOURT ON CLIMATE: $10K Climate ChallengeDenis Rancourthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606noreply@blogger.comBlogger185125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-16221704889360179962016-02-25T05:25:13.729-05:002016-02-25T05:25:13.729-05:00Peter Laux accepts warming due CO2
https://www.fa...Peter Laux accepts warming due CO2<br /><br />https://www.facebook.com/groups/climate.discussion/permalink/563209220513908/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-54524812157090937622016-02-24T06:08:21.623-05:002016-02-24T06:08:21.623-05:00Anthony Cox, Laux's lawyer declares it a scam ...Anthony Cox, Laux's lawyer declares it a scam <br /><br />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:<br />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<br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-53566593756471830222015-06-06T09:31:27.625-04:002015-06-06T09:31:27.625-04:00@Doug Cotton:
Doug, on your website (http://www.c...@Doug Cotton:<br /><br />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:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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:<br /><br />https://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect<br /><br />Find a fundamental physics error in the latter calculation, then you will have made a "great discovery".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...<br />Denis Rancourthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-39430602903073776062015-06-06T04:14:39.906-04:002015-06-06T04:14:39.906-04:00(continued)
This explanation is the last nail in...(continued)<br /><br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />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 <i>not</i> 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 <i>must</i> 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? <br /><br />For more information you may read my website http://climate-change-theory.com and the papers linked at the foot of the 'Evidence' page.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />Doug Cottonhttp://climate-change-theory.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-74085000936121649072015-06-06T04:14:05.475-04:002015-06-06T04:14:05.475-04:00To physicists and those who want to understand wha...<b>To physicists and those who want to <i>understand</i> what's happening ...</b><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />I have had on offer a <b>AU $5,000 reward</b> since the publication of my book <i>"Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All"</i> 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.<br /><br />My book is based on extensive research that I had previously published in two papers in 2012 and 2013, all based on correct physics. <br /><br /><b>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.</b> <br /><br />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. <br />Doug Cottonhttp://climate-change-theory.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-12601805654064981852014-09-21T20:35:06.341-04:002014-09-21T20:35:06.341-04:00https://www.facebook.com/john.turmel/posts/1015331...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. King of the Paupershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374913605730692218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-46814545199936096832014-09-07T06:16:17.257-04:002014-09-07T06:16:17.257-04:00I have not read this whole comment thread.
So, if...I have not read this whole comment thread.<br /><br />So, if I may define some parameters:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The fact that the planet has warmed at the same time that human emissions are rising is proof of nothing. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />If the believers in AGW cannot quantify the human portion directly attributable to global warming, then their belief is merely a conjecture; an opinion. <br /><br />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.Mogumbo Gonohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03410052816886887484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-843134138375346722014-06-26T20:22:45.388-04:002014-06-26T20:22:45.388-04:00With regard to Ayden Harvis,
Whether AGW theory ...With regard to Ayden Harvis,<br /><br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Roger<br />http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com<br /><br />Roger Surfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13134347368988042027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-23753881598275881912014-05-28T17:53:40.816-04:002014-05-28T17:53:40.816-04:00Geoff,
So obviously radiative forcing in that cha...Geoff,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And we directly measure the warming contribution of this CO2 - as my quote from Roy Spencer acknowledges (see above).<br /><br />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.Ayden Harvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-33387344756532117442014-05-28T06:31:48.404-04:002014-05-28T06:31:48.404-04:00Anthony Cox has given some legal advice about a ch...Anthony Cox has given some legal advice about a challenge, and more....<br /><br />http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/peters-bet-10k-challenge.htmlGeoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952473688008286364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-74004319524748694662014-05-26T03:23:45.466-04:002014-05-26T03:23:45.466-04:00Glenn says:
"Surface 0, E, O, E, O, .... E, ...Glenn says:<br /><br />"Surface 0, E, O, E, O, .... E, 0, 0<br /><br />Atmosphere 0, 0, E, 0, E, .... 0, E, 0"<br /><br />For a moment there I thought he was singing Old McDonald Had a Farm.<br />anthonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-88307167332789837772014-05-26T00:35:05.160-04:002014-05-26T00:35:05.160-04:00The gangs all here. I'd give the money to John...The gangs all here. I'd give the money to John Byatt; but since his "proof" is counterfeit I would give him Monopoly money.anthonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-3228723491492335632014-05-25T19:30:35.440-04:002014-05-25T19:30:35.440-04:00Amazing that both pseudo-claimants, without a legi...Amazing that both pseudo-claimants, without a legitimate claim, can't even get Denis' name right.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952473688008286364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-1852057645528891392014-05-25T18:47:24.294-04:002014-05-25T18:47:24.294-04:00Special instructions for trolls who allege an inte...Special instructions for trolls who allege an intent to litigate, while not having demonstrated any viable argument:<br /><br />1. Hire a process server in Australia.<br /><br />2. Here is one: <a href="http://www.processserveraustralia.com.au/" rel="nofollow">Contact for process server!</a><br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It's that simple.Denis Rancourthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-44417083085401069772014-05-25T17:52:38.975-04:002014-05-25T17:52:38.975-04:00I too would like to claim the $10,000 (as well as,...I too would like to claim the $10,000 (as well as, or after, John Byatt)<br /><br />Peter - just a lawyer's contact details, as per John's request, would suffice for me too.<br /><br />Dennis, as you've hosted this, would you make sure Peter gets on to providing these details? My email is andrewdothoskinsatlivedotcom.<br /><br />cheers,Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-34856363607470950182014-05-25T15:35:16.097-04:002014-05-25T15:35:16.097-04:00peter , you have stated that you would love a cour...peter , you have stated that you would love a court challenge,<br />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<br />again please provide your address and details of your lawyer<br />signed john byattduchess judy john byattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-78415175866038547052014-05-25T04:08:55.945-04:002014-05-25T04:08:55.945-04:00Peter Laux's reply after asking for his addres...Peter Laux's reply after asking for his address and lawyers details <br /><br />Peter Laux Snicker, I certainly wont hold my breath waiting for a legal challenge, Id die a million deaths ! <br />So dream on, Don Quixote, telling me to get a lawyer.<br />What for ? <br />To play to your empty grandstanding & fantasies.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />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 ?).<br />So do we have to hear your interminable droning of you being a " gunna " yet again ?<br />The louder and longer you bray donkey , the more obvious is your vacuum. <br /><br />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. dutchess judy john byattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-6762328969554612102014-05-25T04:02:33.812-04:002014-05-25T04:02:33.812-04:00Peter laux refuses to reveal his address and detai...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 duchess judy john byattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-80635950492462729352014-05-24T17:33:32.985-04:002014-05-24T17:33:32.985-04:00Peter you seriously need to understand your statut...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.<br />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<br />Please provide details of lawyer who will be defending your claim <br />reading the nonsense here from dennis about lindzen etc then it appears that only a court case would settle itduchess judy john byattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-26956262356440682312014-05-23T20:14:27.863-04:002014-05-23T20:14:27.863-04:00Peter Laux please provide the details for your law...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, <br />signed john byatt as per Geoff browns details above duchess judy john byattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-13776003069784463222014-05-23T16:18:54.970-04:002014-05-23T16:18:54.970-04:00Peter Laux, i would suggest that you read your sta...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, <br /><br />nowhere in you stat dec does Dennis even get a mention<br />the challenge has been won , screen shots of your latest foot in mouth comments at CCD have been printed, pay up now the dutchess judy john byattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-61002576245649813172014-05-22T22:29:37.800-04:002014-05-22T22:29:37.800-04:00Peter,
Have you heard of satellites?
Dr Roy Spen...Peter,<br /><br />Have you heard of satellites?<br /><br />Dr Roy Spencer explains,<br /><br />"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…"<br /><br />To put it in plainer english for you, we have satellites. They measure the warming effect that increased CO2 has on our climate system.Ayden Harvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-72776535469247424082014-05-22T21:53:28.627-04:002014-05-22T21:53:28.627-04:00So, is it John or Judy?
Do you really think that...So, is it John or Judy? <br /><br />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<br /><br />or contact your phone no 617 5488 0836.<br /><br />Have I got that right, Cooloola Fool?Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952473688008286364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-10154226507421610482014-05-22T09:29:17.629-04:002014-05-22T09:29:17.629-04:00The burden of proof rests on the one that makes th...The burden of proof rests on the one that makes the claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-76778090316190893262014-05-22T06:49:27.373-04:002014-05-22T06:49:27.373-04:00This site is a joke
WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THE ...This site is a joke <br /><br />WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THE $10,000<br />$10K Climate Challenge<br />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.”<br />Peter laux, you cannot prove it,<br />Duchess Judy John Byatt, I can prove it in a single sentence , “ The RF for CO2 is currently 1.68Wm2”<br />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 ! <br />It is a statement of the RF of CO2, nothing more, yet under the myopic view of CO2-phobia is indisputable evidence !<br />Duchess Judy John Byatt Peter Laux ""statement of RF for CO2 nothing more" thank you will file that one<br />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 PETERthe duchessnoreply@blogger.com