|
Post by cuttydyer on Jun 25, 2014 17:25:05 GMT
I suspect this chap will bank the $10K
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 25, 2014 18:38:21 GMT
Rum runner seems to have hit the nail on the head. His graph is better than the models predictions.
Wonder if he will get his $10K
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 26, 2014 19:06:59 GMT
Rum runner seems to have hit the nail on the head. His graph is better than the models predictions. Wonder if he will get his $10K I took the challenge by Christopher Keating, but will see if he is serious. On his blog he says this about his $10,000 challenge in which he says that 'man-made global warming' is real (I say that it is not and is impossible to ever happen on Earth.) Anyhow, Keating says this on his $10K challenge: "Option #1: The basic tenets of AGW are these two IPCC conclusions: It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C and extremely unlikely (95-100%) less than 1°C. So if someone was able to scientifically disprove these two extremely likely / unlikely statements, then that should suffice. That said, the climate debate has shifted a bit over the past decades I’ve following it into at least “skeptics” grudgingly accepting (1) that the planet is actually warming and (2) the physics behind sensitivity excluding feedbacks being 1.1°C. Option #2: Deniers love claiming that previous cycles in the climate prove that the current warming cycle is nothing more than a naturally occurring warming cycle (of course, you have to concede that it is warming in order to make this claim). The problem is that they never provide any proof, or even evidence, that there is any connection between the current warming cycle and naturally occurring cycles. Proof that today's warming cycle is a naturally occurring event would satisfy the challenge. So, there you go. I set the challenge up to favor the deniers and have now even produced two separate ways they can win. And, yet, THE DENIERS STILL CAN'T PRODUCE. That is part of the problem. They are told to put or shut up and THEY DON'T DO EITHER ONE! Come on guys! Do one or the other! They try to change the subject on the challenge. I have been told I should be the one to prove my stand. Two comments on that. First, the challenge is to the deniers, not to me. If they don't like the challenge, then stop making the statements. Second, I DID! That is what my book is all about! I made a claim about the validity of man made global warming and I provided a proof to back up my claim. If they really want to see me prove the validity of man made global warming they only need to buy my book. Until then, the challenge remains and it will remain unchanged. Deniers say man made global warming is false and it is easy to prove it. SO DO IT! I'm still waiting. And, so is the rest of the world. You know why you guys haven't done it yet? Because you are frauds, liars and deceivers! You make statements to the public because you know you can say anything you want without being held accountable. The challenge remains - if is is so easy, why can't you do it? Of course, we all know exactly why. The lack of proof from you guys is all I need to prove my point." Now, Astromet took his challenge. I answered on his blog with a comment that's waiting for him to approve and publish it and also provided Keating with a link here to Solarcycle24.com to do this challenge on this forum with me, so we shall see if Keating walks his talk. I know I do - and I can prove it too. We shall see. Stay tuned...
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 27, 2014 13:22:35 GMT
An interesting reversal of the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis should be that similar warmings have been seen in the past therefore this is natural warming. That would be falsified by proof that CO2 caused the warming
However, he has reversed that (as suggested by Trenberth) so his null hypothesis is that CO2 caused the recent warming. Now falsify that by showing proof that it is a natural cycle.
I would have thought that the disconnect between warming and rising CO2 would be sufficient to show that CO2 cannot be the driver of the current warming - or perhaps that the great depression in the thirties resulted in a huge drop in industry and more than halved CO2 emissions yet CO2 continued to rise monotonically.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 27, 2014 18:13:08 GMT
An interesting reversal of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis should be that similar warmings have been seen in the past therefore this is natural warming. That would be falsified by proof that CO2 caused the warming However, he has reversed that (as suggested by Trenberth) so his null hypothesis is that CO2 caused the recent warming. Now falsify that by showing proof that it is a natural cycle. I would have thought that the disconnect between warming and rising CO2 would be sufficient to show that CO2 cannot be the driver of the current warming - or perhaps that the great depression in the thirties resulted in a huge drop in industry and more than halved CO2 emissions yet CO2 continued to rise monotonically. Quite correct Nautonnier, and astute observation. It always amazes me when the reversal of the null hypothesis then presumes to become 'theory' when it has not even met the demands of that level, much less the obvious fact that one has not disproved the laws of physics have ceased to exist (which is what he has to prove and cannot.) Nonetheless, it is already a long-held fact that CO2 does not drive planetary temperature, or global warming, since the natural cycle is quite evident, and has long since been proved, including by those same laws of physics.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2014 19:22:25 GMT
An interesting reversal of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis should be that similar warmings have been seen in the past therefore this is natural warming. That would be falsified by proof that CO2 caused the warming However, he has reversed that (as suggested by Trenberth) so his null hypothesis is that CO2 caused the recent warming. Now falsify that by showing proof that it is a natural cycle. I would have thought that the disconnect between warming and rising CO2 would be sufficient to show that CO2 cannot be the driver of the current warming - or perhaps that the great depression in the thirties resulted in a huge drop in industry and more than halved CO2 emissions yet CO2 continued to rise monotonically. Yeah, I am offering 10K to anybody who can prove the earth is not being visited by flying saucers at least 4 times a year. It might be provable that less than half (less than dominant) of the warming since the little ice age has been human caused, but he wants the middle of the 20th century and its not even certain there has been any warming in the second half of the 20th century as it may have been warmer in 1944 than today if you go back to the raw data.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2014 21:46:16 GMT
How in the heck do you post using your name on that site? I gave up, and went with anominous.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 28, 2014 22:35:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 29, 2014 12:15:24 GMT
Sigurdur, I really think that this fella Keating is a waste of time. It's the same old and tired argument on 'man-made global warming' with the tired use of the label 'denier' on anyone that comes to the discussion with actual facts on climate science. Obviously, this guy is clueless to the basics of the Sun and reduces the Sun to a secondary player on the Earth's climate. You're not going to get anyone with people like that since they have much more to learn than than can produce in real knowledge and actual experience forecasting the Earth's climate. I figure he's only making his comments to get more hits to his blog, but there's really no progress with him getting down to brass tacks. What he is doing is what these alarmists always do and that's argue for the sake of arguing that pink elephants can fly round and round and round again. It's a total waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 29, 2014 16:34:03 GMT
Code: Because of the Antarctic Polar Vortex, the sheer size and stability of the continent, and the way the current surrounds the land mass, it actually is "somewhat" isolated.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 29, 2014 16:38:16 GMT
Note that I stated "somewhat" isolated, after he stated "isolated". He has yet to respond to the early 20th Century warming being virtually identical, and cause unknown, to the late 20th Century warming. Will see if he ever does respond to that.
Looks to me like the guy thinks he knows a lot, but only knows what his fellow AGW supporters have spoon fed him. And that is the problem with most "climatologists". It has become a religion, rather than science.
Like looking through a crack, and thinking you have the whole picture in regards to climate.
Ignorance is bliss, and he appears to have a lot of bliss.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 29, 2014 17:44:20 GMT
The southern Polar Vortex has actually moved quite a way North. It has large Rossby waves and half of Australia, all of New Zealand and the southern tip of Chile/Argentina are all inside the Polar vortex. See: Winds at 500Mb level Meanwhile the North Polar vortex has broken into jet streaks and some Rossby waves have become isolated vortices as was seen during last winter. Nothern Polar Vortex 500Mb level
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 29, 2014 18:02:10 GMT
Nautonnier: I have noted the lack of conviction in regards to the North Pole Vortex. Being the tilt is allowing 100% sun at the North Pole, it only enhances my opinion, backed up with a few papers, that a low low sun cycle does something screwy to the Greenland High/Icelandic Low and the N Polar vortex.
The climate here, this year, has been like we are 300+ miles north. Northern Manitoba, etc, has normal summer weather that is wet and cool to us. It is like I have moved my farm to that soggy, cool area.
It might change as summer advances, but it had better change soon. Almost July, and the corn/soys/edible beans are not doing well. 147 heat units behind normal.
The wheat is loving it tho.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 29, 2014 18:03:51 GMT
I hadn't looked at the Southern Polar Vortex. Wow is all I can say. This is a huge expansion compared to "normal", or at least our short measurement time frame.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 1, 2014 3:11:02 GMT
Ok, looks like Dr. Keating is a joke, but I guess prob knew that from the get go.
|
|