Is there anything the climate could do to prove the AGW hypothesis...to deniers?

No, there isn't.

The planet is warming, deniers deny it. The upper atmosphere is cooling, deniers ignore it. The planet is warming more during the night than day and winter than summer, deniers ignore it. It's warming greatest at highest latitudes, deniers ignore it.

If they ever did admit that the planet is warming, they would just claim that the warming was natural. If by some miracle they did somehow admit that humans are causing global warming, they would just claim that warmer is better.

The essence of AGW denial is that deniers refuse to admit global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed. The reason they deny this is because they're not willing to regulate carbon. They therefore start with the predetermined conclusion that AGW must be wrong and work backwards. It's therefore impossible to convince them that they're wrong.

What are you trying to get me to believe in, what do you want to prove to me? That the earth is warming? I have always conceded to this fact, That it's unprecedented? We are supposed to believe that we know the rise in temperature is unprecedented based on millions of years of reconstructed temperatures, proxy data that is somehow as accurate as the thermometer on my porch. Funny you mention tree ring data specifically, the same data that was only miscalculated from around 1970 forward and got thrown out because it didn't match actual instrument data. But the rest of the proxy data is as accurate as my porch thermometer. That it's caused by man? I guess I'd have to see the "formula" for our climate and find a variable(s) that could be physically changed, then we could test our control over global temperature by modifying something other than CO2. Unfortunately the climate is far more complicated than turning on the air conditioner and setting the thermostat, now of that I am certain and I've seen enough historical proof of that to know that if we our making an impact that impact is identical to history of weather during my lifetime and from what I've seen in documentaries or read in books the impact of weather on the human species pre-AGW was far worse. That weather is getting worse? For this I'd need actual proof that the weather is getting worse. I've not seen any, I've seen people point to droughts in deserts, floods on river deltas, hurricanes, islands disappearing, more snow, less snow, global warming induced water erosion, prostitution, genocide, polar bear filicide, the list is endless and encompasses all. I'd also like to see more accurate predictions and less pointing to some unpredictable natural variation that threw off the prediction.

<<Is there anything the climate could do to prove the AGW hypothesis...to deniers? Or are they just determined to ignore the science and busy themselves blaming liberals and social[ist] programs for trying to ruin their lives?>>

They are just determined to blame "liberals" and "socialists", and a few also want to blame Prince Philip and David Rockefeller for some reason.

Stick to one story and let's see if it comes to fruition.

Stop changing the story about what's going to happen to the weather as a result of global warming, and let's see if the story you stick to is what actually happens.

No more changing it from "Boston will have the climate of Atlanta" and "RIP ski industry" to "global warming is really a misnomer, it's climate change, and it means more temperature extremes, so cool but very rainy Summers, and 5 degrees for days on end in Winter actually prove AGW."

Also, the planet warmed greater at the highest latitudes during the Holocene Maximum. Did hunter-gatherers cause that?

If there was a truly unusual and anomalous rise in temperature, such as 3 or 4 degrees within a hundred years (as predicted by IPCC) then i would believe they were correct. Less than one degree in a hundred years is not this.

Projections and models are one thing, facts are another.

.

No. There have been five Ice Ages, so the earth has cooled and warmed at least five times in the past. Man was not around then, so man could not have caused it. Mother Nature has cycles that we do not understand. When we learn enough to make it rain in the Sahara Desert and make it green then I will believe what they say about the climate, until then, Mother Nature has spoken and man has no say.

Is there anything the climate could do to disprove the AGW hypothesis...to alarmists?

Or are they just determined to ignore the science and busy themselves blaming deniers and republican programs for trying to ruin their lives?

Do you deny that there was a couple ice ages in the earth's history? It is a fact that more than half of the earth was covered by ice about 10,000 years ago. And what happens after an ice age when the earth warms up? GLOBAL WARMING. It is not caused by humans but is a natural cycle. There is nothing we can do but get out of the way. You however will be one of the first to be screwed since you think we caused it and we can fix it. This is not rocket science, we all know the earth cools down and heats up. Humans haven't been here long enough to realize it. We think we are the most important thing ever but in reality we are nothing compared to mother nature. It cannot be controlled, changed, Etc... The faster people realize that the better we would all be. The science is not wrong except by saying that people caused it. Yellowstone national park puts out more harm full gasses in one day than all humans do in twenty years. That's a fact. Also, try thinking about things before you base your opinion on a TV news story, you do have your own brain you know. Think about it.

who's idea's was it anyways to try and control the universe and all that is and the life energy force within ...seriously some brave lil humans are we now...save the planet stop this do that not this...i never knew a race so confused fighting amongst themselves...what a shame to be from earth..well the humans at least..i bet the animals and nature know whats happening it just the expansion of the universe "time". use all your brain and you will know this.

The climate would need to show an out of the norm increase in temps.

Now if you are asking what your scientists would have to do for me to listen to them, I would say they should actually perform science and follow the scientific method. Having models with no predictive power and claiming certainty is absolutely absurd.

Now if what you want to do is reduce US CO2 emissions, then I would suggest lessening the red tape on nuclear power. Do this and have the gov't make sure that Big Oil is not able to interfere with the creation of electric cars, and this will put nuclear power and electric cars at the fore-front and place them in a situation in whcih they can easily and relatively quickly take over the market. Note that this can be done without a movement towards socialism and does not require the solar cells and biofuels which have shown wholly incapable of either meeting demand or being relatively inexpensive.

One other note I have come out strong against biofuels, but I am not agianst biofuels made from plant waste as opposed to converting produce farmland to biofuel farmland. Even so, these are more expensive than necessary.

Bucket learn to read.

ACutally your question and Dana's answer is quite humorous. So basically we have increased by 0.7 degrees in 100 years of which half of the warming occurred prior to any human intervention. Now do you think if we see you 7 degree increase, we won't believe? Sure we will. But as that is not likely to happen and you are really only showing the same rate of increase as already seen in the past, I will say I require more evidence to state AGW as a fact. I will concede that we should look to reducing CO2 emissions, but not at the cost of human lives. You believing it to be a fact seems more of a religious belief than a scientific belief.

Trevor fail to really put this in context:

H2O makes up 1-4%, while CO2 makes up 0.04%. The sum total of greenhouse effect around the globe is 33 degrees C, most of which undoubtedly caused by H2O. What they want you to believe is that an increase of .01% in CO2, will cause an increase of 7 degrees in temp.

Why? Because CO2 is such a powerful GHG? No. Not according to the scientists. According to the scientists it will occur because the Earth only has positive feedback loops which will cause runaway global warming. So if you ask "If there are only positive feedback loops, then why hasn't the earth gone into runaway global warming or cooling many times in the past?", you will more than likely only be told insults as a response.

Trevor,

You have stated the problem that I have with most of the AGWers. They have accepted as almost a certainty the models which lack any negative feedbacks. Clearly the earth's temp is relatively stable and would not remain so if no negative feedbacks were present. Also, just as clearly there are aspects that we do not understand enough to claim a high level of certainty, especially with respect to runaway global warming models. This is not to say we are not causing some warming and that we should work toward lessening human impact, just that the fear inspired by the idea that London will be under water lead to seriously poor decisions.

So what does this mean we should do?

Clearly nuclear power gives off little to no CO2 and will soon be the cheapest form of energy available. The safety concerns have been overstated as there have been no US deaths from nuclear power. Move towards this by dropping many of the red tape constraints (not safety constraints) and offering tax incentives. Use the government to ensure Big oil does not get in the way of advancement of electric cars. Without interference, electric cars are not far away from being a viable option, and could soon become the standard. This will nearly eliminate all CO2 production and can be done in 30-40 years. Our only reason for accepting substandard solutions is due to fear generated by the end-of-the-world scenarios.

Also I know about the GWP measure, but it really fails for water. The reason that it is low for water is not that it is not able to store more energy than CO2, but that it is in the atmosphere for only a short period of time. But while it is only there for a short period of time, it is very quickly replaced by more H2O. I have yet to see convincing literature that they are accounting for water properly when they place it as only accounting for <70% of the GHE.