Would global warming be "impossible to disprove"?

Question

...if global warming was not occurring (as claimed by some)?

Skeptics frequently make this claim, so I'm trying to understand whether or not there's any logic behind it.

Answer 1

I am studying indicators of CLIMATE CHANGE in Minnesota (University of MN) right now. Global warming is not impossible to disprove, especially since science seeks to prove statements false rather than prove something is true. I've studied walleye spawning times and ice-out dates (day that ice has melted from a lake), and so far I've discovered no spatial or temporal trends. Meaning that based on regressions (statistical analyses), I've found no evidence to support global warming. Spawning and ice-out times have gotten earlier, later, or remained the same for locations across Minnesota. I could tell you more if you want to know, but at this point I think I have provided enough to answer your question.

Answer 2

not only is it impossible to disprove it is impossible to even define...

if it is warmer in Seattle for ten years straight is that global warming or a local trend...

if i take five cities in the us and plot the temps for ten years what about then...

the problem is to disprove or to prove global warming you would have to have statisticly relevant data that covers a measureable timeframe for the cycles involved.

the earths cycles are measured in hundreds of thousands of years...

to cover those periods prior to mans existence we use core samples.. but we really only have reliable data from 2 spots for core samples.. and one of those was just obtained within the last few years...

two three foot areas of the earths surface is NOT statistically relevant

the bottom line is to proof/disproof the effects ANYTHING has on a system you MUST understand the system itself...

it is like a cave man arguing about what effect changing plug wires has on an internal combustion engine... he doesn't understand how the engine works.. so how can he possibly understand it will remove the crackle from the bass!

Answer 3

it is impossible to disprove because if it is warm for 1 day then it is because of global warming if it is cold for a month then it is weather. If it rains it is global warming you say everything is global warming.

Answer 4

:O :O

Answer 5

If human emissions of CO2 have added to global temperatures which should be the case, albeit in minor amounts, unless the temperature increases directly attributable to man are greater than the natural variation, it is impossible to prove or even get a good indication of cause.  For example if the natural variation were to result in another Little Ice Age, and the temperature declined by 0.4 degrees (instead of the 0.8 degrees it would have naturally), that would not disprove human contribution to temperature.  You would see a decrease in temperature.  It is difficult to think in time intervals and scales that are greater than our lifetimes.  Too many people focus on decades or years and that can be very misleading.   It is impossible to know what human contribution to global temperature is because it is impossible to know what it would have been otherwise and the models that are used are based on incomplete knowledge.  Also, IMO it is misleading to suggest that global warming is or is not occurring without providing a time scales, (for example it has certainly warmed in the last 10,000 years.

Answer 6

It could be disproved (or at least seriously damaged) if the 30-year temperature trend-line changed direction, while CO2 levels continued to rise.  The 30-year time period has long been considered a standard in meteorological circles in order to separate weather noise (and decadal cycles) from climate.

It could have been disproved if the rising CO2 in the atmosphere came from a source not related to human activity. This, of course, won't happen unless a major error in isotope analysis were discovered (which would upset a lot more science than just climate).

It could have been disproved (or at least the level of concern weakened) if Lindzens iris hypothesis had panned out.

It could have been disproved if the satellite measurements of solar output had shown an increasing trend equivalent to 1.5 w/m^2.

Answer 7

Euclid's paradox, and the String Theory all have the same thing in common.

Edit: (Ken), it's already a upset. C12=99% natural, C13=1.1% both. Do the math.

Edit: (JS), there was a decline in 2001 of 1.5%(verify) because I'm to tired to reference it, and chaotic systems are easier to model, based on postulation. Trying to standardize is a different ball game. There are only two sources of known energy discounting nuclear, 1) the sun, 2) internal ie; volcanoes.

Answer 8

Let's not cherry pick our skeptics, too.  Most skeptics readily admit global warming is real and part of a natural cycle.  We were once in an ice age, now we're not.  Ta-da!  Proof of global warming.  What is impossible to determine with our current understanding of climate drivers is man's level of contribution to the system, though what we DO know would suggest this contribution is a very small percentage.

As for evidence of the cause of this natural warming trend, simply compare the last 20 odd solar cycles to the known climate history over the same period.  The correlation is unmistakable.  Does this mean sunspots cause global warming/cooling?  Not necessarily.  It means the cause of global warming affects both the Earth's climate AND solar activity patterns.  CO2 levels on Earth can't do that.  

If the man's contribution to global warming is limited to our collective effect on the world CO2 balance...we're pretty much off the hook on this one.

How hard was that?  GW proven, AGW "busted".

Edit (Tuba):  I wasn't here last year, or you would've heard the same message then, too.

Answer 9

No.  It's perfectly possible to disprove a theory.  In the case of global warming, just show that global temperatures are not increasing in the long-term.  Skeptics often try to accomplish this, but unfortunately they do so by cherrypicking points (1998) and failing to apply any sort of statistical analysis.  They just say "the planet hasn't warmed since 1998" and hope that if they say it often enough, it will become true.  Of course even if it were true, 10 years is not a sufficient timespan to prove that global warming has stopped.

In the case of AGW, just come up with a more accurate explanation for why the planet is warming and explain what cause is swamping out the increased greenhouse effect.  Skeptics attempt to do this with solar warming (completely disproven) and galactic cosmic rays (almost entirely disproven).

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

But to answer your question, while AGW cannot be proven, global warming could certainly be disproven.  It just hasn't been - not even close.  And until it's disproven, as long as the scientific evidence continues to support the theory, it will continue to be accepted as the correct explanation.

*edit* It's the same reasons skeptics make all their irrelevant statements.  The science is not on their side, and they either don't understand that or don't care.  They're determined to remain in denial, but it's an illogical position, so they make illogical statements.

Another is when they say 'the burden of proof is on AGW believers'.  This is untrue, because the scientific evidence supports the theory, as do the scientific experts.  Once a theory becomes accepted, the burden is on those to disprove it.  That's how science works - you can't prove a theory, but you can disprove it.  All you need is some scientific evidence.  The AGW 'skeptics' don't have it.  And they know they don't, which is why they try to put the onus on the other side.  They can't disprove the theory, but they know it can't be "proven" either.  It's just a cheap debating tactic.

Answer 10

i've just been learning about this in a2 biology!

its impossible to prove

yet impossible to disprove

many data sheets and sources support the theory

yet there are other explanations about rising c02 levels and rising temps correlation that are also not disproved, so it is just a theory, not a conclusive answer

Answer 11

Why you already have your mind made up on what you believe and if some data would suggest otherwise you would discredit  it.  Your like a fundmentalist believer, justify your errors has God's Will and take credit for others hard work as your strong faith. As far as Dana goes I am tired of his arrogant statements and attitude towards others.  I doubt he would be so arrogant and smart face to face.

Gravity is a theory which means what goes up must come down that can be proven.   Electronic theory hole flow is a theory which determines how a transister works to control flow we can't see it yet we can see the result.   AGW has no basis in fact  because there is no way we can know what the climate would be right now if man did not exist, h**l we may have stop species from becoming exinct that maybe should have  or vica versa.  Frankly I do not know who are the worse AGW believers or Fundamentalist.   Global Warming is natural stop making more out of that then what is.

Answer 12

Yeah well, we're now starting to hear, "Most skeptics readily admit global warming is real and part of a natural cycle"  That sure wasn't the case last year.  So what does it mean?  "You've come a long way Baby"?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  It's kind of troubling to also see "Not only that, but by jingo IT"S GOOD FOR YOU!"  Are we sure the envoronment has enough time left for this "one synapse at a time" approach?