The $100k Global Warming Challenge
- Thread starter heckler73
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the prize is $100 000. In essence, the prize will be awarded to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.
yep, CO2 probably shot up from 280 PPM to 400+ PPM because nature, thereby warming the planet.
just one of those random things that doesn't happen for 800,000+ years, and then does.
yep, CO2 probably shot up from 280 PPM to 400+ PPM because nature, thereby warming the planet.
just one of those random things that doesn't happen for 800,000+ years, and then does.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
The prize awaits you.
The audio on this is not so hot, but the physics Happer brings up after ~20mins gets the temperature rising.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
from what i've read, the challenge is this:
So, what is his big challenge? Well, it appears to be to identify (with 90% accuracy) which of his 1000 time series were simply random, and which have had a trend added to them. Doing so would, according to Doug
demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/a-stupid-100000-bet/
which is just plain stupid. because according to the same people who just wrote that^^^...
Doing so would simply demonstrate that one can identify which of a set of randomly generated time series have had a trend added to them. It will tell you absolutely nothing as to whether the increase in global temperature is due to random natural variation or not.
the worst part is that doug keenan appears to know this, it has been explained to him repeatedly, and he simply is too dense to get it or too stubborn to admit it.
but then again, it takes a real dense and stubborn person to rebut the findings of NASA, NOAA, and 37 national academies of science.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I ask those who would deny that human activity is the main cause of climate change a very simple question, yet they can't answer it;
'How could the collective activity of SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, all burning everything from camel dung to diesel fuel on a daily basis, NOT affect the climate?'
Crickets.
'How could the collective activity of SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, all burning everything from camel dung to diesel fuel on a daily basis, NOT affect the climate?'
Crickets.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I dont think that anyone has stated that there is no effect from the human population. What has been stated again and again is that we cannot determine what is natural variation and what portion is caused by the habitation of humans on the planet.
So yes, it is affecting the climate. Now, whether the effect is good or bad is debatable along with the amount of effect.
Are you happy now?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
except for you!
tell us more about how forest fires cause global cooling now!
m4s73r
Well-Known Member
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You know what you get when you make assumptions...
Corso312
Well-Known Member
heckler73
Well-Known Member
In calculus, one can define a difference between two points on the order of an infinitesimal. That doesn't mean it's zero, even though compared to 1, it might as well be.
So the question I ask myself in return is what makes one think CO2 is the main cause of the statistically minor changes in questionably averaged global temperatures in the first place?
The experimental proof is somewhat scant, while the questions continue to mount. But if CO2 isn't the "cause," what is?
Water is a helluva drug.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
In calculus, one can define a difference between two points on the order of an infinitesimal. That doesn't mean it's zero, even though compared to 1, it might as well be.
So the question I ask myself in return is what makes one think CO2 is the main cause of the statistically minor changes in questionably averaged global temperatures in the first place?
The experimental proof is somewhat scant, while the questions continue to mount. But if CO2 isn't the "cause," what is?
Water is a helluva drug.
even skeptics like lindzen call CO2 skeptics like you "nutty".
the link between CO2 and temps is beyond question.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
All opinion. According to the experts, the change in the average temperature of the Earth is significant, not "statistically minor", and well beyond the scope of what nature can accomplish in 135 yearsIn calculus, one can define a difference between two points on the order of an infinitesimal. That doesn't mean it's zero, even though compared to 1, it might as well be.
So the question I ask myself in return is what makes one think CO2 is the main cause of the statistically minor changes in questionably averaged global temperatures in the first place?
The experimental proof is somewhat scant, while the questions continue to mount. But if CO2 isn't the "cause," what is?
Water is a helluva drug.
So why don't you explain it in your own words from a thermal dynamic point of view?
This ought to be good for a few laughs.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
In calculus, one can define a difference between two points on the order of an infinitesimal. That doesn't mean it's zero, even though compared to 1, it might as well be.
So the question I ask myself in return is what makes one think CO2 is the main cause of the statistically minor changes in questionably averaged global temperatures in the first place?
The experimental proof is somewhat scant, while the questions continue to mount. But if CO2 isn't the "cause," what is?
Water is a helluva drug.
Ok, so ask that question. There isn't any doubt the earth IS warming, soooooo let's follow the bouncing ball!
Why would water be a cause? It's an effect, all right- but as sheets of ice and clouds, it can be and always has been- a mechanism that's affected BY climate change, not a proximate cause. Also, it hasn't changed much in the last century or two.
Methane? Now there's a candidate! Some thirty times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, it's a result of organic decomposition, insect activity and ruminant flatulation... cow farts.
Except that human activity has increased the amount of methane in the syndicate, so now we have to count it as one more vector of global warming...
But even the cow fart heard 'round the world doesn't compare to all the world's fossil fuel powered electrical grids, transportation systems, industrial facilities and buildings.
Don't like it? Throw a volcano! Works every time! You'd just need to set a nice big one off every couple of years...
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
The other side of the coin is an ice age. Limited crops, advancing icecaps, population forced to move closer and closer together toward the equator?
Yes, I think there is a chance that preventing the oncoming ice age might actually be a good thing.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You and other scientifically illiterate conservatives are the only ones on planet Earth who believes an ice age is coming
So if his opinion of an ice age is coming is "illiterate" then why bash someone over an opinion. You have your off the wall opinions and thoughts why bash some one else for theres. Does the computer you sit in front of make you feel powerful, strong, etc. Your way is not always right and usually wrong as well as many others. I would just like to know why do you bash others for sharing their opinions when you do the same
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
The earth hasnt gotten any warmer in the last 18 years yet you are still crying about global warming. Coming from you that is a compliment.
Similar threads
