Skeptics, if the world saw another 5-10 years of warming would you consider the AGW theory?

Question

And don't give me that amateurish BS about how the world's gotten cooler since 1998. Anyone -- even most skeptics who study climatology as a hobby -- go by (usually) five year averages. You don't go by individual years for the same reason you don't go by individual days or minutes.

I've never heard a single professional climatological AGW skeptic refute the warming. They argue the CAUSE of it.

Answer 1

No... Pretty simple 5-10 years is nothing (unless you see 5-10 degree change) If you look at the time before the" little ice age" to today you might have a hard time believing AGW

Answer 2

Well unfortunately deniers (which is the correct term) are not going to be convinced by anything.

It's funny to see them talk about how the next solar cycle is predicted to be a strong one so that may cause future warming.  How does that jive with the fact that solar output has decreased slightly over the past 30 years as global warming has accelerated?

Then there are the ones who claim global warming has "stalled".  You summed it up nicely.

"I've never heard a single professional climatological AGW skeptic refute the warming. They argue the CAUSE of it."

Exactly.  With the exception of a few scientists who are climate science novices (like geologist Bob Carter), no scientists claim that global warming has stopped because they know basic statistics and the difference between signal and noise, weather and climate.

Answer 3

You answered the question for me.  The "Cause" of global warming..... IF the Earth is getting warmer.... is the real issue.  The cause has yet to be proven.

We really don't know whether or not the Earth is warming.  The temperature monitoring equipment used to study past present and future temperature has been found to be below standards.  As a result, temperatures have been reported as higher than actual.  The Earth's temperature monitoring system needs to be repaired before ANY predictions or theories are put forth.

If the data is flawed..... there can be no science!!!

Answer 4

Basically, no.  What is presented out there now is designed not be be factual, or scientific, but to panic people into unwise political decisions.  And make huge profits off the common people for a few greedy individuals.

Like the push to alcohol as a fuel when the burdened price of a gallon of ethyl alcohol is around $12, 4X gasoline, and there is less energy in that gallon.  Plus the push to get it from corn is causing over-fertilization to wash into the Gulf of Mexico, polluting and killing it.  But who cares?

Shows the effects of silencing the dissenting scientists, and distorting data, for political ends, and to make quickly a few personal fortunes.

Global warming comes and goes naturally, and has been far hotter than now for far longer, recently as geological ages go, and we still have polar bears.  Explain that?  And the corals did not fry and die, either.  Explain that?

But the way the jungles and rain forests are being destroyed for biofuels, we will NOT have them much longer!  And nobody I know of is working to save all the unknown species being bulldozed away daily!

I suppose we should applaud the one Dictator who sold all his people's crops for Biofuel generation, and reduced the CO2 load by starving his people to death.

I do have a question though for you.  Astronomers have found now 3 asteroids that are on likely collision course with the Earth.  How will it help save the Earth if we put all our money into cooling the earth to the optimum temperature, and none into determining what to do about the asteroids?  

They just keep coming, and it takes a LOT of energy and time to move an asteroid aside.  Don't think we can save the whole Earth if we wait until they are just 2 weeks out!

If we get the climate to the perfect temperature and peg it there (which, btw is what??...nobody has said!)  and the Earth takes a 50 mile diameter asteroid in the middle of the Pacific..or in downtown Kansas City....what good will it have done us?

Don't we have other priorities besides making Al Gore more famous and richer, and continuing to show his discredited and proven false film to our children's science classes as truth?

Will it help the Earth if our future scientists grow up on fictions and fabrications because they are politically popular? Called truth?  Called Politically Correct?  Called Tolerant?

Remember the Consensus in the Dark ages?  Agreed to by scientists, politicians, and even the religious leaders.  And even the serfs.  Remember it was a 100% consensus...and was 100% wrong, and set science and society back hundreds of years.

Consensus is NOT always right.

And Consensus by suppression of dissent is always wrong.

How about we work WITH nature in the warming...and cooling, and take advantage of the new resources, the expansion of the food supply potential, the opening of new resources, and transportation routes, and enjoy what Nature is giving us?  What is wrong with that?

I do not think we should be making some people very rich by impoverishing the rest, and fight nature, especially since science is still in disagreement as to how to "cope" if coping is needed.  Yes, they are...you think science agrees because the dissent has been kicked out and silenced...so naturally the remaining people agree!  It is their livelihood!!  

Remember how disagreement was met in the Dark Ages?  Read your history recently??  Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it!!

Never heard the 5-year average touted...why not a 22 year average to average out the sunspot cycle?  Or a 17-year average to coincide with the locust cycles?  Can YOU tell me why 5 years is a magic number "everybody" uses?

Have you ever looked at 1880's and Krakatoa, and how Nature showed us how to control the Climate?  And the great experiment industry ran to show how to control the Climate in the 1950-1970's period?  It is all there, in black and white...historical, proven...and you MISSED it???  Modern schooling, I guess!

Question for you...if we got a huge bottle of Chlorox and sterilized every bog and tarn and swamp in the world, where things decay, how much CO2 would that eliminate?  And how much more CO2 could we then eliminate by putting up lightning rods protecting all our forests from forest fires?  Would that offset a good part of Man's contribution to the CO2, or not?

And finally, your last statement is thrown in for a confusion factor...the issue of argument is whether this is a normal warming period as we have had for millions of years, off and on, OR if this is a terrible awful earth-destroying artificial one diabolically planned and caused by Evil Men who do NOT make money off selling carbon credits and panicing the whole population into buying things to save the Polar Bears and all the rest of the world from Devastation caused by Evil Men.  Evil Men who do not believe a lying film!   Evil Men who do NOT believe in the Gospel According to Gore.  Evil Men who do not burn up megawatts of electricity throwing concerts while not too far away hospitals do not have electricity and people are dying because they are not permitted even a few kilowatts of electricity,  in order to Save the Earth.  And I guess you missed seeing that too...right?  Oh my!

Answer 5

That depends on the next solar cycle.  NASA is predicting a 50% increase in intensity over last years cycle.  If that is the case then we should see temperatures continue to rise.

This solar cycle is also late, predicting others to speculate it is going to be a period of low intensity.  The fact that the earth's oceans are still warm, means that we should see a gradual cooling in temperatures.  But if temperatures increase, despite the low sun activity, then I will reconsider my position.

Edit:  Dana why is one a denier if you choses not to believe your sources?  You are wrong when you say sun activity peaked 30years ago.  Read this link: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/2...

Answer 6

The correct answer is "no".  The doubters around here are not real skeptics, they are ideologues who don't read the scientific literature.  Real skeptics approach any controversial subject with an open mind and go in the direction of the evidence.

Since science is always tentative about every theory (including evolution, plate tectonics, etc.), the AGW doubters will always claim there isn't absolute proof.

Answer 7

If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 and we'd signed, ratified and lived up to Kyoto, then Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Bob, Trevor, Dana and you would all not only be admitting that it's cooler than it was nine years ago, but you'd be taking credit, claiming that we've "turned the corner" thanks to the restrictions they'd implemented.

As for answering the question, that depends on how much warming we got.    Solar cycle is delayed but supposed to be a doozy.    If we get more warming than would be associated with that, then that would say something.   But so far the trend is the reverse.

EDIT - Dana you're the one in denial.

Answer 8

No, not unless the global temperature increased to a level above the maximum seen in previous cycles (3-4 degrees Celsius above current levels).  Until this natural maximum is exceeded, there is no reason to believe that the current warming trend is anything more than the natural cycle that has repeated itself for hundreds of thousands of years.

Answer 9

Of course not.  If the Earth warms, that's just evidence that the Earth is warming, not that man is the cause.  Why not blame the warming on the Sun?

If agw is real, if co2 is the cause for all warmth, why can't believers just tell us the relationship between co2 and temps?  Why not just tell us how much warmer it will be 5-10 years from now, and show us how you came to your conclusion?

Just saying that there is warming, and following others who say it's real is far from scientific proof.  The "consensus" has been wrong so many times in the past that no reasonable person should ever rely on what they say.  We should only use objective science to form what we know.

Answer 10

If the climate warms over the next 5 to 10 years, I will be convinced that the AGW theory must be in control of the climate and I was confused, but I would be willing to make you a bet that 10 years from know globally averaged temperatures will have been on the decline and will be at least 0.5 degrees C. lower than current globally averaged temperatures.

Answer 11

My first response, was to use the same argument as the alarmist."Oh it's just a normal weather pattern...it will go away."

I got higher standards then that...How about if it got cooler,would you deny the Holy preaching of IPCC and the like?

To be honest I've never tossed out that theory.The way it's being promoted,who's doing the promoting,and the reasons for such, that leaves one speculating.There are bigger issues that dramatically effect the environment then CO2...accept it.