Wouldn't Global Warming Be Easy to Disprove?

1. All they would have to show is a *statistically significant* (meaning the trend is outside the margin of error) long-term global temperature trend of less than or equal to zero. The best they can come up with is a 5 year *statistically insignificant* negative trend.

Or worse, they'll show local instead of global temperature data, like the USA or Sargasso Sea. Cherrypicking at its finest.

Trends over the past 10 years have also been statistically insignificant (although positive).

Over the past 15, 30, 50, 75, 100, 150 - whatever increment you choose, the trend is one of statistically significant warming. If you go back beyond 150 years you're moving prior to the period of significant human climatic influence, so there's no point in looking at the trend over the past 1,000 years, for example. It's comparing apples to oranges.

2. You're never going to find an instance where increasing CO2 didn't correspond to increasing global temperature, because it's a greenhouse gas and also a temperature feedback. It's just simple physics that increasing CO2 will in turn increase global temperature, regardless as to whether it was the initial driver of the temperature increase. This is something which certain geologists can't seem to wrap their heads around. Maybe they need to take some more physics classes before professing to be global warming experts.

3. Not possible - CO2 is 37% higher now than it has been at any time in the past 650,000 (and likely millions of) years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420....

4. As you know, most planets and moons in our solar system are not warming. Uranus, for example, is even cooling.

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/...

And more directly, solar output hasn't increased in 30-70 years.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/...

And of course there's the fact that the upper atmosphere is cooling as the lower atmosphere warms, the planet is warming more during the night than during the day, we're in a cooling phase of the Milankovitch cycles, etc. etc.

There isn't one example disproving AGW because it's a fundamentally sound theory. A position of doubt cannot be justified based on the current state of scientific evidence. But that's not going to stop people from trying (and failing miserably).

The BIG money for grants is from organizations who have a vested interest in perpetuating the global warming myth. Grant money is the researcher's bread and butter, so if they can't get grant money, they are in trouble. As a scientist you don't get famous by going AGAINST the beliefs of your peers. You get stonewalled in your efforts. If you do decide to do a study that disproves some aspect of global warming, you can't get it published because the pro-global warming advocates control the journal editors. If you aren't published, you aren't famous. People make a big deal of "peer-reviewed" research. Well as these emails prove, it's an incestuous process. Like-minded "scientists" review each others' work with the intention of merely supporting their mutual agenda of supporting global warming. Sorry, my friend. Many people naively believe like you that research and science is a pure intellectual pursuit. Unfortunately, scientists are human beings and they can be corrupted.

You asked: 1. To disprove the warming, simply show one global data set for the past 150 years that does not show warming. Where is that (global) chart?

You have got to be kidding. Is this some kind of joke? Why not 1000 years. Too inconvenient? Why not 10 years? Again, it won't be in your benefit. Can't you see how this is cherry picking your evidence. I think a reasonable time frame would be a million years. That way you can evaluate several natural trends. An examination of this time scale shows nothing unusual in the current trends. In fact, many more dramatic climate shifts have occured.

CO2 has not generally been a driver of climate change in the past. Temperature has been a driver of change in CO2 concentration. This is not my opinion. It is a basic fact. Regarding item 3, we don't need to show when CO2 was higher when CO2 has not been a driver of climate change.

I personally don't blame the sun on everything but you have to understand that the sun produces lots of radiation at various frequencies and has a magnetosphere that shields us. It also has magnetic and cosmic storms that disrupts the earth's field. We simply don't understand the mechanism very well. It is clear that sun spots do correspond to solar output and also do correspond to temperature changes though it isn't a simple relationship. There is much we don't know.

The burden of proof is on alarmists and they have failed miserably.

If you are really interested, here is a table which shows the Sargasso Sea proxy data. Look at the chart which shows projected temperatures and remember to the left is present and older data is too the right.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=145

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4cu...

This one shows several bits of data including CO2 and temperature from ice cores. Note that it doesn't simply show CO2 as Littlerobbergirl tried to pan off as evidence. If you look carefully, you will see an approximate 800 year lag time with CO2 relative to temperature but it isn't easy to see on this graph since the scale is so large. Rest assured that this 800 year time lag is factual and not something I dreamed up.

CO2 levels could vary based on local emissions but it is doubtful. it is much more likely to be errors. Your focus on CO2 is without merit. CO2 is one factor among many. You cannot say what stabilizes the climate. You don't know what effect raising temperature has on other clouds or water vapor. Water vapor is much more important as a greenhouse gas and for driving climate yet it is poorly understood. Alarmists sometimes pretend to understand it and use gross assumptions in their models. CO2 correlates to both cooling and warming. When it warms, CO2 concentrations go up after a few hundred years and when it cools the concentrations go down.

In modern times humans have certainly affected CO2 concentrations. That doesn't mean they have significantly influenced temperature. CO2 concentration is more like a symptom of warming (or cooling) than a cause.

Note you suggest that he recent release of CO2 is unprecendented, except in a few cases such as the Siberian Traps volcanos, which released CO2 for 200,000 years, precipitating global warming and the Permian-Triassic extinction.

These so called mantle plumes are theoretical and I suspect the theories have developed as a consequence of funding for CO2 alarmism. I remember joking that CO2 will probably blamed for killing the dinosaurs and sure enough out pops the theory. It is very similar to the Permian Triassic. With the dinosaurs it involved the Deccan Basalts in India. Again, it is a poorly understood phenomena. It may very well have released CO2 causing the warming but it wasn't a couple hundred parts per million. It would certainly take far more than that.

Apparently not. You have ignorant non scientists that don't have the slightest clue about cause and effect making rash assumptions. All you should have to prove is the models are wrong. Just show that it is warming more on the surface than at high elevation. That would be absolute proof if there weren't other man made factors. As it is, it is just a near fatal flaw in the theory. Another near fatal flaw is how the temperature doesn't historically follow CO2 levels. There are other near fatal flaws but the fact is, it is becoming less likely that humans are causing significant warming, not that there was ever any particularly good reason to think they were besides an overly simplistic and ridiculously skewed computer model.

1) Why should I show warming for the past 150 years when the IPCC says most of the warming of the last part of the 20th century is due to greenhouse gases. Where does the IPCC say early 20th century warming is anthropogenic?

2) Check out the 800 year lag in the ice core samples.

3) Beck did a thorough review of the existing literature (175 in this study) revealed 90,000 accurate historical measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration by chemical methods from 1812 to 1957 with errors below 3%. His conclusions:

The CO2 chemical data show no constant exponential rising CO2-

concentration since pre-industrial times but a varying CO2-

content of air following the temperature. For example around

1940 there was a maximum CO2 of at least 420 ppm.

Historical air analysis by chemical means does not support a

pre-industrial CO2-concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC), as

modern climatology postulates. In contrast, the average in the

19th century in the northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the

20th century, it is 338 ppm.

3. Today's CO2 value of 380 ppm has appeared several times in the

last 200 years — in the 20th century around 1942 and before

1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the

20th century rose to over 420 ppm in 1942.

The enhanced greenhouse hypothesis is that initial co2 warming will be amplified by positive feedbacks to cause catastrophic warming. So the levels of CO2 is irrelevant since it does not prove the positive feedback theory which is essential if you want the models to show catastrophic warming.

4) There are many papers that show a historic correlation between sun and climate. Here is just one.

http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/GC/article/vi...

Edit:

Again: Your hypothesis is not that co2 caused the last 150 years of warming. Your question really does not make sense.

2) How do you now that temperature does not control co2 levels.

3) Those historic co2 levels are accurate and shows that the IPCC cherry picked their data to prove a hypothesis.

"Callendar, Keeling and the IPCC did not evaluate these chemical methods despite being the standard in analytical chemistry, rejecting the data as faulty and highly inaccurate. However from 1857, the Pettenkofer process was used universally as a standard and was accurate enough to develop all the modern knowledge of medicine, biology and physiology (photosynthesis, respiration end energy metabolism) taught today worldwide."

So it was not outdated but pretty accurate. The data used today comes on single source, and that from on top of a volcano.

4)Why do you not quote his conclusion:

"Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales"

Again your hypothesis is not if co2 effects temperatures, but if co2 can be a climate driver. And if the sun affected climate in the past, why are you denying and being so adamant that the low sun activity is not effecting today's temperatures.

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report -- updated from 2007's groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

I'm assuming you can read a simple graph. Two and three are easy, but by the same analogy it has caused controversy. Depth is a representation for age.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt

The amount of CO2 released into our atmoshphere within the last 50 years is extremely un natural, and probably almost unlike anything that has happened to our atmosphere in our planet's history. So it is extremely hard to disprove by comparing it to history

"It's freezing all over the world, from Las Vegas to China! Do you realize the global warming hoax is larger in scope than Bernie Madoff's scheme?"

There's nothing to disprove since it's never been proven to be anything more than a natural occurrence.

Can you disprove that unicorns exist?