To AGW skeptics: What would you call proof?

Question

I keep hearing the skeptics say they want proof, but they never define what that proof would be? What data would you call a proof? AGW is not like the second law of thermodynamics that can be proven. Climatology is not an experimental science where we can go to another planet similar to earth, raise the CO2 levels over 100 years and see what happens. You cannot prove evolution but the evidence is overwhelming that it is considered as fact. What would call proof? What would change your mind?

Answer 1

If you could do away with the entire historical record of past climate changes which clearly show, the recent warming trend is by no means exceptional. The temperature goes up and then it goes down. Up down Up down, Up down, Up down, get the point. Wait a minute, Mann's already tried that when he excluded the well-documented medieval warm period in his dramatic hockey stick graph. I guess I'll have to think of something else.

Answer 2

The thing is, those who call themselves AGW 'skeptics' are usually not skeptics, they're deniers.  They're looking for a reason to reject AGW.  The requirement of "proof" is a great excuse, because AGW is a theory and cannot be proven.  So you can provide them with all kinds of overwhelming evidence, and they always have this cop-out.  It's not "proof".

I really don't understand this "show me that CO2 drove temperatures in the past" nonsense though.  Whether it did or not (and it did), what difference does that make?  

The whole premise of AGW is that this time is different than previous climate changes!  Now humans are adding previously sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere.  So we're saying this time is different, and the deniers are requiring that we show that this time isn't different.  It makes no sense.  

Once again, they're searching for a requirement which AGW cannot possibly fulfill, because they want a reason to reject it.

For the record, in previous warming events when there was the infamous '800 year lag', the warming events lasted for thousands of years, and CO2 was the driving force behind the warming for most of those periods (after the '800 year lag').   The difference between now and then is that we're releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere in a temperature-independent manner.

But of course this is too subtle for the deniers.  They oversimplify it, again, to find a reason to reject AGW.  That's also why they make arguments like 'there's been no warming over the past 5 years/there was no warming from 1940-1970 even though CO2 increased', because while AGW is more complex than that (CO2 is not the only climate driver), they oversimplify it so that they can reject it.

Really this is very basic physics though.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  The planet is 33 deg C warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases.  More greenhouse gases means a warmer temperature.  For deniers to require further proof that CO2 can drive an increase in global temperatures is just absurd.  They're rejecting basic physics.  That's denial.

Answer 3

If CO2 increases, would not plant life benefit and become more numerous?  If so, why is that bad?

Isn't a diamond made of pure carbon?  If so, why hasn't it been banned?  You only hear the potential bad things that CO2 can do, but what about all the benefits?

Sodium is a volatile, explosive mineral and chlorine is a poisonous gas, but mix the two together, it becomes salt.

When we experienced temperature increases on this planet, how come the other planets in our solar system experience the same increase?  Who's driving these hummers on mars?

We are at the beginning of another solar cycle and hence, the temperature will begin to fall, the first half of this year is the coldest in years.

Answer 4

For starters:

1. Clear historical data showing Co2 as a major temperature driver in the past.

2. Find the Greenhouse signature of today.

3. Anything better better than .... "Because we can't think of anything els , it must be Co2."

sorry , just a theory . Nothing CLEAR about it .  The Ice core records are the best way to tell if Co2 has ever driven temp in the past and the verdict is in....NO ! It hasn't . As far as your "one time" theory , I would love to see someone prove that a Co2 molecule can magically transform itself into a super Co2 molecule ... just one time .

Answer 5

I just find it really hard believe that CO2 is the main driving factor in climate when there is no evidence of that in the past. The earth has been around for more then the "last 100 years of warming".Sure, the 800 year lag might mean that co2 amplifies temp, but it could also be that co2 levels react to changes in temp, because temp is being influenced by some other factor or a number of factors.

Also, I find it funny how people ridicule the idea that the Sun, could be the  cause of recent climate change. Why is it so inconceivable that the Sun, THE SUN, could be the cause?

EDIT: Like dave said, show something else beside observations and correlations. Those do not necessarily prove anything. They help, sure but you can't stop there.

Answer 6

AGW...  ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming.

Please direct me to the documents that demonstrate the causal link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and Global Warming.

The "science is settled"... this should be an easy thing for you to do.

Please don't give me endless documents that offer opinion, or documents that say they agree with the views stated in the IPCC reports but similarly don't demonstrate any causal connection.

Answer 7

firstly the term skeptic suggests that those who do not agree with the IPCC and its followers are wrong and some kind of nut, actually most are open minded people who do not believe everything they hear in the media. That what I think science is about, after all if no one question the "concensus" we would still think the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, which at the time where well accepted theories. In more recent times we had the forecasts of an iceage in the 70's and the millenium bug scare. Those who disagreed at the time where also called "skeptics".

I agree with some aspects of AGW but disagree with others, I keep an open and pragmatic mind and follow BOTH sides of the argument.

The key signature for global warming would be rapid warming of the troposphere, this is the signature for global warming theory, however, this has not been happening, instead the surface of the earth is warming faster than the troposphere  (well up to 1998, the earth is currently cooling).

If a rapid warming of the troposphere could be proved, it would only confirm that the greenhouse layer is warming the earth.

You would still need to demonstrate to me that the tiny amount of co2 produced by man is causing that when co2 only accounts of 0.054% of the greenhouse layer, of which 3% is attributed to man.

The IPCC still have not yet demonstrated this after billions in research globally. The IPCC science paper draft acutally stated that no link between man made co2 and global warming has yet been found but it was removed at the request of business and environmental groups from the final draft - this is well documented and the IPCC admitted to it.

If the IPCC have found no link the argument is quite weak for AGW! I have no doubt the climate changes however, and I can accept that co2 levels may be able to contribute to warming on however a small scale.

Also keeping track of the arguments on both sides, there is a growing wealth of evidence against and nothing of significence from the otherside. If it was demonstrated that co2 is of concern than we should consider the implications of our co2 production.

I think unfortunetly only time will tell - but relax the earth has been much warmer in the past and we all survived ok (including the polar bears) and the sea didnt swallow the earth so if we do nothing we will still be ok for at least long enough to get a better idea of whats going on.

"in light of new information I change my mind, what sir do you do?"

Answer 8

CO2 has been a powerful driver of climate change in Earth's past - but the CO2 levels that drove those prior warm periods were 1200-1500% higher than today - - not 1/3 higher.

Answer 9

i dont know wat that means srry :[

Answer 10

Lots of things that have large holes in their logic are considered as true, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are. What is it to you if someone doesn't believe in Global Warming? You want them to believe so they can quit killing the earth?

Rising CO2 levels over only 100 years would not cause what people call "Global Warming". There have been warming and cooling periods on the earth forever. Hundreds of years ago people could not settle northern Europe because it was too cold to plant crops and have them return and set up a successful life there, but for some reason it became warm enough that places like Germany, Sweden, and Norway became habitable. That's the same reason the Vikings were able to eventually spread all across the northern Atlantic--because it became warm enough! There were no cars around then! What caused the Ice Ages? What caused the ice to recede? What happened to the land bridge between Asia and North America that allowed humans to cross over? It was ice too, you know. What caused it to melt?

I guess you'd say the fires humans have been making forever caused that much CO2 to be put into the air. Even if that were true, should we sacrifice our own survival, expansion, and comfort because some scientists who claim to be a consensus tell us we could be hurting the planet? Common sense, people.