Part A: AGW proponents, what would change your minds?

Question

What would change your minds about AGW? Please be specific about the sort of evidence/proof that would make you agree that humans do not/cannot contribute to GW/climate change.

Because this question is for AGW proponents, BA will be awarded to a proponent, then I will post part B for the skeptics.

To be fair, I will post the exact opposite question.

Answer 1

If scientists find new sinks mechanisms that better regulate CO2 and model what impact they have on the system.  If  it shows no difference form historical baseline, this would be a major finding.  If scientists review such information determine it is credible (sound base in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics), they will quickly reach a scientific consensus that AGW is not a problem that requires our attention.  It would take a few years - studies have to be repeated and picked apart and concerns answered.  

Answer 2

The guys below reversing their official positions, that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.  

I'm a long time professional scientist, with a decent reputation in my own small area (which is not climatology).  But I'm no so arrogant as to think I can interpret the climatology data better than thousands of the nation's top scientists and trained climatologists, or that my "common sense" is better than their scientific skill in analyzing that data.  That would be very bizarre.

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Answer 3

Someone needs to come up with a viable alternative explanation for the recent warming of ~1 deg C over the past century and 0.5 deg C over the past 30 years.  This explanation needs to be able to overwhelm the 1.6 W/m^2 radiative forcing from CO2.  The explanation needs to be physically sound, and convince a significant portion of the climate science experts.

Basically, somebody needs to explain what's wrong with the AGW theory and put forth a better theory.

Answer 4

when all these folks,  who know much more about the matter than you or i, change their stance.

NAS, NOAA, NSF, NASA, EPA, MIT, UCLA all agree. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a serious problem.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer

"May 19, 2008: The National Academies have released the 2008 edition of "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change," a free booklet designed to give the public a comprehensive and easy-to-read analysis of findings and recommendations from our reports on climate change."

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...  <== here's a good description.

http://www.funnyweather.org/  <== this is a more lighthearted link.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cn...

http://www.international.ucla.edu/articl...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/clima...

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_war...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news...

<<"Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."  The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.>>

Answer 5

A rabbit in the precambrian. Oh... wrong section..

Simple... an explanation for observable warming that fits the data. So far there isn't one. There have been a few proposals but they have failed when tested. This whole thing is exactly like the intelligent design fiasco. These people have a belief with no data to support it, but they whine about unfairness and accuse science of being exclusive and elitist. Same S***e different topic.

Answer 6

We don’t know everything that there is to know about climatology, and nor will we ever. We also don't know everything there is to know about gravity and relativity either, but we still fly and send people into outer space.

However, the greenhouse theory is based on long and well established physics. Certain gases, “greenhouse gases,” in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation. An increase in greenhouse gases will absorb more infrared radiation. Positive forcing by greenhouse gases is the only thing that can explain most of the warming observed over the past 30 years or so.

Our recent global warming is different from the ones in the past; this one is not caused by changes in solar output, cosmic rays, changes in Earth's orbit, or changes in volcanic and tectonic activity. It could be an act of God (which would make this Intelligent Warming, right?)

More importantly, we are not just talking about warming over the past thirty years. Due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the average global temperature is expected to rise by another 1.1 to 6.4°C by 2100.[1] The most likely increase will be between 1.7 and 4.4°C. If humanity decreases the amount of CO2 emissions that are released into the atmosphere, then the temperature change will be smaller, if the amount of emissions increase, then the temperature rise will also increase. Most climatologists remain optimistic because if humanity acts soon, then the most harmful of possible effects may be avoided.

So, if it was proven that greenhouse gases did not absorb outgoing infrared radiation, then I would probably change my mind about the whole thing.