What would happen if global warming was suddenly proved wrong?

Question

Just asking if global warming thing was completely proven wrong and everyone accepted it. If global warming never happened and never will happen after we accepted it too.

What would happen?

Now i want answers that do not talk about global warming is real and dooms day stuff.

Now serious answers!

Answer 1

Remember the ozone hole? No? What happened to that? it just... went away....

Global warming is the same kind of stupid. So I suspect it will go away the same way, hopefully soon.

Answer 2

If it was prooved wrong, people would ask, why are we spending billions of dollars a year on climate research.  Sure it would be nice to understand the climate, but we just arn't getting much knowledge for our billions of dollars.

A lot of people don't believe in AGW now, but changing the contents of the Earth's atmosphere is still not a good thing, it may have some unintended consequences and be difficult to reverse.  There would still be some interest in nuclear and alternative energy.

Answer 3

if global warming happens to be proved 'wrong', one thing is certain: many people did their job to prevent such from happening; nevertheless, it should be everyone's goal...

Answer 4

It would take some time. Eventually, the theory would die away and people would resume their normal lives--lives without fear of rising sea levels, without fear of monster cyclones and megadroughts, without their fear of super heat waves and melting glaciers.

Science and environmentalism would likely take large hits to their credibility. Climate science especially would be reduced to a doom and gloom pseudoscience, losing for ever the power to warn the public of impending climatic disasters. The federal budget for climate science would drop precipitously, the popularity gained by the field would quickly decline, and climatology would resume its place as a barely heard of field with a small core group of experts.

On the environmentalist front, here is a somewhat relevant quote:

"Many individuals, including a large portion of environmentalists, believe that a purely technological approach to stablizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could lead to social apathy towards climate change.

Ted Parsons, a professor at the School of National Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, writes that the promises of air capture could carry a ‘moral hazard’ because political pressure for near-term efforts to curtail climate change may be reduced.

Air capture also addresses one of many factors adversely affecting the environment. The climate crisis is a powerful tool to motivate change - like checking the ever-expanding global population and excessive resource consumption - and if the urgency of climate change is compromised, other environmental projects may fall by the wayside.”

Economically speaking, it is hard to tell. Many governments and large corporations have vested interest in this, so it could likely be very negative for the world economy. Many jobs would probably lost and companies might fail.

The march toward sustainability would likely continue, if only to keep costs low in the long run.

Who's to say what would happen?

Answer 5

The theory of AGW has already been proven wrong numerous times by numerous scientists.  Have you notice any change?  Me neither.  It is about money and political power.  It was never about the warming, or Al and the rest would be living the life that they demand from the rest of us.

Answer 6

If sanity prevails the focus would shift to some of other grave environmental concerns.

I.e. if air-pollution is not causing global warming, it most certainly has other unsavoury side effects that put our future in peril.

Answer 7

"No such thing as global cooling in the 70's ever existed.

I would guess that if it were proven wrong (winning the lottery unlikely) that not much would change. Gas would still be outrageous, solar energy production would still be the best alternative."

Firstly, there is such a thing as global cooling

Farquah and Roderick have noted a fall in pan evaporation rates in australia since the 1990's

Gerald stanhill using data from several studies over the last 50 years noticed a 22% average fall in solar radiation - 9%over usa, 10% in aus. 30% in russia and 60% in the uk. Lipert found the same over the german alps

Also following the three days after 9/11 (when all aircraft were grounded) a guy called david travis who studies the effects of vapour trails left by aircraft  found a change in the temperature range of 1oC (which is a huge amount for such a short space of time)

emmition of pollutants increases the albedo of clouds (makes them more reflective) and so reflects more solar energy.

secondly - solar energy is still in its infancy and is relatively ineffective. the future is wave power - the oceans harness enough energy to meet the worlds power needs several times over.

If global warming was proven wrong, nothing much would happen. renewable energy is still the way forward because its free - so financially its an investment.

climate scientists wouldn't peril - we still emit a lot of chemicals and pollutents into the atmosphere. we are also always finding new chemicals to be used in industial production. Climate scientists are still very much needed to work out how these chemicals will interact with the soils and atmosphere - prehaps they will breakdown quickly. or they could end up building up in animals like DDT does.

climate scientists are also very much needed to predict and minimise the effects of hurricanes, flash floods etc.

The world is warming. that's an undeniable fact. as is the fact that CO2 levels have been higher than they have been in earths history. we also know that the increase in co2 is from burning fossil fuels (each co2 carries a unique isotope signiture which can be traced to it's source)

the only thing scientists are arguing about is whether the greenhouse gases humans are emitting are causing the unprecidented rate of cooling.

To be honest even if they are wrong - whats the harm in saving money by turning lights off or perhaps in the future having cars that can run off of water. - the less c**p we emit the clearer the skys and fresher the air :)

(And "pollutin' tootin' cheap stuff" would not be our best alternative - they run out and are bad for our health)

Answer 8

You'll have to define what you mean.  Data clearly show that climate varies.  Sea level moves up and down in response to the amount of ice tying up seawater.

Even skeptics use the existing data to show warming and cooling in the recent past.  See the .gif below.

That we're warmer today than in the little ice age, just a short time ago, is unequivocal.  That we're warmer than during the last glaciation is also hard to refute.

The issue is how much we have to do with it.  Maybe a little, maybe a lot.  

I suspect your question is better rephrased "What if human emissions were suddenly shown to be at most a minor driver of our current climate shifts?"  Well, we might have a redirection of political and social will away from blaming emissions and into dealing with inevitable climate variation.  

We're stuck with climate change, as we always have been.  Places get wetter and drier, warmer and colder.  Regardless of the driver, we'll have to put up with drier conditions where I live.  But I'm on jungle soils, and it's not jungle yet.  And if I head up into the mountains I see periglacial effects, and that kind of cold isn't likely, either.

But running such a large experiment (massive emissions of gases into the atmosphere) on our only planet isn't a good idea.  

I rather like (regardless of the role of our emissions in warming) taking an energy independence approach.  Lamar Alexander's proposal for an energy independence Manhattan Project seems excellent.  Would get the country cheaper to run in the long term, which is a good thing.

Answer 9

No such thing as global cooling in the 70's ever existed.

I would guess that if it were proven wrong (winning the lottery unlikely) that not much would change.  Gas would still be outrageous, solar energy production would still be the best alternative.

Answer 10

Serious answer?:

Like everything else...they would blame it on global warming.

Answer 11

First you would have to prove that Physics is incorrect!

All the arguments of the 'deniers' have already been proven  WRONG!

Answer 12

Obviously they could allocate that money for better uses. Infrastructural change would be great, especially on the local levels. I personally would like the curtailing of land base toxins, and heavy metals to be a primary focus. The current logic of sending jobs overseas, then paying for their environmental discrepancies makes no sense,"(basically paying them to pollute)". In other words realign, Free Trade agreements so it's not so lop sided. Only those countries and the rich corporations benefit as it stands now.Sure you get a cheaper price at Wal-Mart, but the indirect loss of jobs and tax base doesn't justify it. Once governmental regulatory policies where implemented it ceased to be a free market. Another misnomer as compared to GW. Sounds great I know, but at least I can dream about practical application.

Answer 13

Not much.  Thats because I don't think you could offer any proof that some would accept.

Some of the greenies would dispute any proof.  They would always have an explanation of how this is just a short term respite that still backs up the long-term trend.  

They have a political agenda that they will not allow to be derailed.

Answer 14

Al Gore would go broke

Answer 15

Same thing, that happened in the 70s when they said we had global cooling.

Answer 16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDHcNR-J6...

Answer 17

What answer do you want?

"Oh, well all the bedroom commentators who have been sat doing nothing to help anyone can shout to their mom that their guess was right?!?!"

How can anyone give a serious answer to a stupid question.

It is real, it is a concern, the effects from it happening are what you should be focusing in instead of hypothetical questions.

I'm sorry I know you did but ffs you have it wrong.

Do you think that the teams of greenpeace, the water cleaners all the environmentalists who ARE keeping this world cleaner would stop.  NO WE WOULDNT, why because it is obvious that man can easily fk up this planet and thats why I answered so. OKs?

Do you really want to live on a polluted planet? I had my doubts but you just confirmed them.

Answer 18

It has been "put on hold" for at least a decade or so evidently. It might be longer than that since we have what may prove to be an alarming confluence of events. The ocean currents, Pacific Decadal Ocillation, Atlantic Decadal Ocillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Ocillation all seem to be causing cooling. At the same time, solar cycle 23 seems to still be dragging along, doing almost nothing but still there, while the new cycle (#24) is also almost inactive.

CO2 is proving to be less of a cause of warming than predicted by the IPCC, since supposedly it would warm the oceans, yet the oceans instead are cooling the atmosphere. As for the solar cycle, the last time it was this silent for a prolonged period was the depths of the Little Ice Age, an event the IPCC would like us to believe was a localized event.

Add to this the ongoing eruption of the Chaiten volcano in Chile which is spewing ash 60,000 feet into the sky and you have a scenario for global cooling. Possibly short-term, hopefully minor, but it's also possible it will be at least as bad as the Little Ice Age. Or even the return of the ice age we're currently in, which would be very bad news.

If this does happen, we will need alternative energy even more since it won't be feasible to drill and pump oil thru miles of moving glaciers. That won't affect the Middle East oil, but oil in Russia, Alaska and the North Sea, as well as tar sands in Canada will be inaccessible. Solar would be a good option, assuming we don't get major solar dimming from further volcanic eruptions. Hydrogen, nuclear and hyrdo would also be invaluable.

It might prove to be a good test of the AGW theory if we get a major period of cooling. We could try pumping a million tons of CO2 into the air to try to keep us warm, but I doubt it would have much impact. Don't expect the AGW crowd or the IPCC to give in easily, despite a decade where it got no warmer and year which was markedly cooler, they now claim their theory still fits. The oceans aren't warming, neither is the atmosphere, yet somehow the data still fits the AGW theory.