Why do you think AGWor GW, is so hard to prove?

Question

I've read some articles from decent sources,that list two big concerns.Other then skeptic's having hard heads.Can you list any that might coincide or offer something new?

1.synchronization

2.tropical CO2

You don't have to expand on these unless it's a dire need.

Answer 1

Because any scientific theory is hard to prove.  So are evolution, gravity, big bang, etc. etc. etc.

I don't see why your 2 'big concerns' are issues though.  By synchronization I assume you mean the various climate indices like PDO and ENSO.  But these are not an issue with regards to global warming, they only impact weather.  Trevor provided a great explanation here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

By 'tropical CO2' I assume you mean the temperature of the tropical troposphere, but this does not undermine the AGW theory in any way, as I discussed here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 2

I think it's because it's so complex and no matter what the Pious might say, nobody truly understands all the variables that drive climate change.

Answer 3

GW is not caused by C02, it is a product of GW.

Answer 4

Everything is hard to prove...  Doesn't mean it's not true. It's funny how things that benefit some people and hurt others are always harder to "prove".  

"The only thing I can prove is that there is no proof" 311

Answer 5

The over-cautious and ultra-super conservative would claim that, while many of them are changing their tunes, that there just isn't a big enough collection of datum to "prove" GW.  That's too bad, the signs are pretty obvious.

-J

http://badhuman.wordpress.com

Answer 6

You could consider the current/past PDO charts.They go back to the 1900's and have been accurate except for minor blips/bounces that were short lived.They are independent of man made factors,suggesting a viable resource as to data.These are used for decadle references but have 20-30year durations.

Answer 7

Because we can't create 100's of laboratory planets and repeat various experiments (of course, even that wouldn't convince the die-hard ideologues).  We are living in the experiment and we only have 1 chance (from which a reasonable mind would conclude caution and preparation is prudent).

GW is easily demonstrated real and has already been proven to anyone with a reasonable unbiased understanding of data.  Only those who are statistically naive think we haven't been warming or it suddenly stopped.

AGW is more difficult because there are numerous factors causing both warming and cooling affects in our atmosphere.  But the key thing to remember is that all science is tentative (including evolution and plate tectonics).  Proof is a mathematic term, science is more about weighing the evidence and the strongest theory surviving while those that don't fit the observed facts die off.  

In a murder investigation, once every suspect but one has been found with a rock solid alibi, the remaining suspect becomes the focus of the investigation.  In AGW, this happened about 10 years ago.  But sadly, the public is now just becoming aware of the entire topic and they are ignorant of the long history of how AGW developed as a theory.  The evidence is enough to convict.  There's no such thing as absolute proof in science.

Answer 8

Prove comes in several flavours.

Prove beyond shadow of doubt,

preponderance of evidence,

enough evidence to make a reasonable action plan.

Clearly the absolute certainty proof is not available.

Many people will accept that preponderance of evidence is there, despite lingering doubts.

But the most important question is, can we form a useful and meaningful action plan.

We definitely can form such a plan even knowing that our efforts may be inadequate. We can know with preponderance of evidence that failure to adopt a meaningful action plan is in effect adoption of an action plan that is most likely to harm us. So time to get down to deciding the details of an action plan.

Answer 9

Hard to prove to who?

To scientists it is 'proved' though of course in science absolute proof is not something that does not exist.  There enough evidence there to allow a concensus to be formed.

To the general public it is much harder.  For one the issue is so large and complex that the getting a grasp of the knowledge needed over the noise from sceptics is difficult.  In addition people may be so overwhelmed by the problem that defence mechanisms such as denial of the science can prevent them accepting the evidence of AGW.

Answer 10

There are far too many variables.  It's just easier to blame man.

Answer 11

Global warming is very difficult to prove because we have insufficient knowledge in spite of the rhetoric from Dana and other alarmists.  Anthropomorphic warming is even harder to prove.  First you have to figure out how much CO2 is actually (not claimed by alarmists) to be from human activity.  Then you have to figure out its influence on the climate.  There are plenty of other things that humans do as well.  If you are going to blame us for CO2, then you have to take into account all other emissions and particulates as well as changing land use.  You could put them into a computer model and that certainly is being done, but there is very little certainty that they will be close to predicting real events because there are too many variables.  You will probably have about as much luck guessing the swirl patterns of your cream in your morning coffee. .

Answer 12

I think the two things you list are a good start.  I might also include:

3.  Nonlinear dynamics

4.  Baroclinic enstrophy flux

5.  Rossby pumping

6.  Swagelok/Nupro/Whitey high pressure fittings

7.  Minwax for Wood (tm)

8.  Subscriber trunk dialing

9.  Declining sperm count in the males of industrial countries

Since there's not a dire need, I won't expand on them.

Answer 13

Because science is being proven, then changed, then changed again and we don't know if it's true.

AGW is very hard to understand because of the "overwhelming" proof from both sides. Only time and technological improvements will tell.

Answer 14

Temperature Monitors Report Worldwide Global Cooling

Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM

Print E-mail del.icio.us Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com 32 comment(s) - last by Murst.. on Feb 26 at 3:13 PM

Recipient E-mail Please enter a valid E-mail addressPlease enter a valid E-mail address

Sender E-mail Please enter a valid E-mail addressPlease enter a valid E-mail address

Please input the letters/numbers that appear in the image below. (not case-sensitive)

Please enter the characters in the image below.

Protected by FormShield

World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.

A twelve-month long drop in world temperatures erases global warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.