Anyone up to this task?

Let’s take issue with this what you assert here first. You say “Proof that today's warming cycle is a naturally occurring event would satisfy the challenge”. Okay. Well you should explain why the temperature increased at almost exactly the same rate between 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998? The trends are shown below. Human CO2-emissions were negligible pre-1940. So why hasn’t the rate of warming increased as our CO2-emissions have increased? According to the CO2 hypothesis, the temperature should have accelerated. But it did it. Hence the warming we are experiencing is within long-term, well-established natural variation. Furthermore, the current rate of warming is not unprecedented in the paleo-climate record. For instance the GISP2 ice-core data shows temperature increasing by 5°C over 30-40 years and as much as 8°C over 40 years during the Younger Dryas period. The following graph below shows the current rate of warming relative to historical rates of warming as documented in the GISP2 ice-core. Also the temperature is not unusual for an interglacial period either. The last interglacial period, known as the Eemian, according to the Vostok ice-core data was about 2-3°C warmer than today. As for the last 10 years being the “hottest on record”. Records only began 150 years ago and we have only been able to measure temperature reliably with the invention of satellites and they have only been operational since the 60’s. That was some 50 years ago. Please burn into your memory Jeff that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and our “record” is nothing more than a mere blink of an eye in Earth’s long-history. But still, global surface temperatures have been flat for about 10 years now. This has even been acknowledged by James Hansen, who is often referred to as the ‘Godfather’ of global warming. To quote former NASA-scientist James Hansen: “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow-down in the growth rate of net climate forcing”.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-...

Period Length Trend

(Degrees C per decade)

1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes

1910-1940 31 0.150 Yes

1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes

1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

You also say “It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”. Really? Well I think the burden of proof would be on you here, but let’s see. According to a study by Ryan Eastman and Stephan Warren cloud-cover decreased by 1.56% between the years 1971-2009. Clouds constitute about 2/3rds of Earth’s albedo, meaning that Earth’s albedo would have changed by 1% between 1971-2009. Clouds simultaneously warm and cool the Earth but their net-effect is that of cooling (Dessler 2010). Therefore if you reduce clouds you’ll get net-warming. But how much by? To calculate the temperature increase from a reduction in albedo the following equation is generally applied: RF = S*A/4. Where RF is the radiative forcing, S is the solar constant (1368W/sq.m), A is the albedo, and then you divide by 4 to take into account that the cross-sectional area of the Earth exposed to the Sun is equal to 25% of the surface area of the Earth. Assuming Earth’s albedo deceased by 1% then that would change Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature by 1368*0.69/4 = 236W/sq.m from its original value of 1368*0.7/4 = 239.4W/sq.m representing a change of 3.4W/sq.m. Easily enough to account for the assumed warming we have experienced. Other studies have concluded similar things. According to Goode and Palle 2004: ““The decrease in Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by ISCCP translates into a decrease of the bond albedo by 0.02 and an additional SW absorption of 6.8W/m^2. This is climatologically very significant”. And Pinker et al 2005 found a satellite-measured global brightening of 1.92W/sq.m between 1983-2001 from reduced albedo. Hence we don’t need to blame a trace gas that constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere. While I’m on the subject of CO2, according to Hottel 1954 and Leckner 1972 (including other researchers since) the total absorptivity/emissivity of CO2 at a concentration of 0.039% (390ppmv) is smaller than 0.002. When applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law that only works out at a radiative forcing of 0.3W/sq.m or a temperature increase at the surface of 0.05°C. Not enough to account for the assumed warming of 0.8°C since we came out the Little Ice Age.

That's pretty stupid. First, the climate has alwasy been changing. Second, the climate is a chaotic system that is affected by everything. So man is certainly changing the climate, but that in no way means that the change is either measurable or catastrophic. Third, this is a shift of the burden of proof.

Don't believe me? I have a miracle drug that will solve all the world's problems. You need to pay may billions of dolars unless you can prove it doesn't work. You can start by sending me $10,000, unless you can meet my burden of proof that the drug doesn't work. Methinks that you will not be sending me your money.

In fact, I consider stupidity like this to be more evidence that it is a scam.

Dook,

I do occasionally make spelling mistakes. I also frequently go back and correct my grammatical errors. The old spell checking used to help.

The funny thing is that you think this means something. All it means is that you are entirely unable to find one incorrect thing in any of the many statements I have made and must solely rely on small spelling mistakes.

LOL. You are an entertaining little clown.

Gary F,

It is funny when you say stupid strawman arguments to argue against me because you are too stupid to do anything else. Of course chaotic systems have statistical solutions, just like the weather can only be predicted for a week, however, predicting 100 years out is absurd. Further, only pathetic scientifically illiterate or lazy fools would ever think that they can shift the burden of proof when you can barely show any.

Maybe the sceptics should have a turn now?

Let's pull all the current climate research and related funding and spend a billion dollars a day for the next thirty years on looking for non-man-made CO2 causes and see if we can find one.

I bet we would!

Raisin Caine –

>>First, the climate has alwasy been changing.<<

That and similar statements (“it is a cycle” “temperature has always gone up and down” ”it has been warmer than it is now” “CO2 has been higher in the past”) all are evidence of scientific illiteracy. It is the same as saying that God or the Easter Bunny control climate change.

I

>>Second, the climate is a chaotic system that is affected by everything. So man is certainly changing the climate, but that in no way means that the change is either measurable or catastrophic.<<

That is essentially the same as not knowing the difference between weather and climate. The fact that the climate system consists of chaotic non-linear components does not mean that it is affected by “everything” or that the component variables cannot be measured or that the system cannot be described mathematically. The fact that an (alleged) PhD in Statistics does not know that chaotic systems have staitistical solutions seems odd. Did you get your degree from Liberty University?

>>Third, this is a shift of the burden of proof. <<

The burden has shifted. AGW is the accepted scientific theory (just like gravitational theory, atomic theory, nuclear theory, electromagnetic theory). AGW theory generates research ideas and projects – its reality is no longer a research question. There is no federal research money allocated to determining that AGW is real. See for yourself - here is the National Science Foundation funding information (all federally funded programs are public domain) :

http://www.nsf.gov/funding/

Wow. All you guys need to do is show, via experimentation or measurements, that an addition of CO2 is not causing greater energy retention at the related frequencies or that the increase or future increase of water vapour is not a result of that warming. He even gives you ways you can prove AGW false.

----------------------------------

Option #1:

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.

----------------------------------------------

Option #2:

Proof that today's warming cycle is a naturally occurring event would satisfy the challenge

----------------------------------------------

So instead of complaining to me about it on here. you have the parameters. Climate science is not a miracle science that can not be proven false despite what some claim. I challenge people to do this. I'm sure you could even bring up the PDO (Even though the long term trend outside of the PDO is still one of warming. IT just has a tendency to mask that warming in decadal intervals much has the ENSO does on biyearly intervals)

Nice try, but, you can't actually prove a negative (eg prove God doesn't exist).

Now by coincidence there's also a prize for scientifically proving man made global warming, it's 50 times the amount of your challenge and is half a million dollars, any of you warmers here up to the task? Maybe yourself ? The prize has been available a long time, it should be a cinch for some of the geniuses on here lol.

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/news.htm

Don't need the scientific method to prove what is already true!

Skeptics can also throw the scientific method back at him and ask to "prove that it hasn't cooled since temperatures peaked since 1998".

Using anomalies to prove global average temperature increases or decreases is futile. Just because a batter has a lifetime batting average of .333 and he made an out the last 2 times at bat (0 for 2), doesn't mean he is going to hit the ball (get a hit and be 1 for 3 = .333) the next time up.

Yep! The climate is changing along with the landscapes. It happens everywhere and all of the time.

Temperatures rising? Yep! Happens all of the time, especially after Ice Ages (it usually falls during those time periods - didn't know if you knew that).

CO2 forcing it some? Yep! But not to the extent of what "environmental alarmism" claims.

Skeptics don't have to worry about taking on such a hypocritical bet. They're still waiting for science to come up with the formula that says x amount of CO2 causes y amount of warming and is a danger to our very existence. So far, nothing remotely close has been presented that is worth the price of "bloomer pudding".

" ... Keating also points to the funding source for much of the deniers. “A recent study done at Drexel University showed that denier organizations have received nearly $560 million over an eight-year period. They traced this money to about 140 different organizations, including many with ties to the fossil fuel industry. These are the people that stand to lose money if we do something about climate change. It simply shatters any credibility the deniers might have ever had.” ... " - This is laughable. I guess he doesn't know where climate research money comes from. He's just another hypocritical "Church for Climate Science Engineers" evangelist. He gets his money from Government (which gets it from businesses - (income taxes generally pay for expensive Government social services) - or just prints it) and then claims "foul" when the very source of his Government funded climate science is funding another scientific view that contradicts his own viewpoint.

Another climate clown IMO!!!

20 years of being sponsored by the Government? LOL!

" ... He has been a professor of physics for over 20 years and has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. ... "

Interesting what a hash Raisin makes of English grammar and spelling in a madcap rush to twist and distort the example in the question to fit the anti-science BS he has swallowed by the bucket load.

The physicist in the example OFFERS TO PAY $10K to "anyone that can prove, via the scientific method that man made climate change is not real."

Raisin here tries lamely to contort that here into someone DEMANDING TO BE PAID $10K.

The only question now is: will he own up to his stupidity/dishonesty/paranoia on this page, or try to lie his way out of it, or let this answer be vaporized?

That's a strawman bet. All skeptics acknowledge that there is man made climate change. The real argument is the assumption of a positive water vapor feedback with increased CO2. I.e. man does affect the climate but by how much?

To answer the water vapor question, I'd like to know why the diurnal temperature range is very small in humid climates like rainforests yet very large in deserts? That would seem to be evidence against a water vapor feedback wouldn't it?

See? The skeptics all said no and made their excuses. Obviously they don't need the cash because they're already in the pockets of big oil ... :p