Evidence that shows anthropogenic global warming/climate change is false?

I think we’ve all been looking for this elusive evidence for many years now. We’re incessantly being told that such evidence exists and are constantly bombarded with claims about how climate change has been shown to be false or how it’s due to natural cycles. Yet for some strange reason, no-one has yet managed to produce this evidence; it would almost make one think that it didn’t exist.

I must have asked 2, 3, 4, 500 times for the deniers to validate their claims and as far as I’m aware this has never been done. It’s enough to make people think that the deniers don’t actually have any evidence and are simply lying through their teeth or fabricating ‘evidence’ as they go along.

Anyway, good luck in your quest and don’t be too disappointed when nothing of substance materialises.

Here you go deniers, yet another opportunity for you to produce the evidence that you seem to think exists. Let’s see if on this occasion you can actually come up with the goods.

- - - - - - - - -

COMMENT: TO DAVID

David, I think you need to check some of your figures. Atmospheric CO2 residence period of 15 years? (try 115 years), 8Gt of human CO2 emissions per year? (try 31Gt + 13Gt CO2e), 4ppmv anthropogenic rise? (try 2ppmv) Carbon sinks removing 60% of human GHG’s? (try 40% max) etc etc

Quoted from other sources - Climate sensitivity of ≈0.5°C or ≈0.6°C doesn’t add up (where’s the other warming come from), historical CO2 levels up to 390ppmv is contradicted by more reliable evidence (empirical mass spectrometrics as opposed to indicative stomatal data).

The argument of "Deniers" I know has never been there is no AGW. We are just skeptical because the AGW claims nd models have been proven wrong. We have been cooler since 1998! That is over 11 years, for Pete's sake. The predictions were that as CO2 increases, then the temperature increases. Skeptics tried to rebut that in the 90's when by Gores on chart, it showed CO2 followed temp. in the Vostok ice core samples. Also, the earth has been in a long term warming trend for over 16,000 years according to the ice core sample data. During that long warming trend, there are many thousands of shorter periods in which the rate of warming and/or cooling either skyrockets up or down for fairly long (10-30) years. Why is so ridiculous to think we may be in one of those periods? I am a SKEPTIC. I believe the AGW theory is a valid one, but not yet an accepted fact. You can call me whatever you want, but until I see factual data back up your theory without far-reaching assumptions, then I will remain a skeptic and believe that the earth will go on warming until it decides to start cooling again. Just like it always has long before man had anything to do with it.

AGW is a fact, deniers come up with all kinds crap like this from David:

"The carbon cycle does not drive the climate cycle. The climate cycle drives the carbon cycle."

Yes, in the natural cycle, CO2 does lag behind the temperature increase. It is agreed among all climatologists that natural forcing does drive climate. In past natural cycles, CO2 acted as a feed back mechanism, furthering the warming after other variables initiated it. Now, CO2 that has been introduced UN-naturally assumes the same role it has performed in the past.....it raises temperatures.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Sea level rise

Global temperature rise

Warming oceans

Shrinking ice sheets

Declining Arctic sea ice

Glacial retreat

Extreme events

Ocean acidification

>>Now, Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors, working with the Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute, Columbia University, reviewed the suite of skeptic claims "that global warming is a hoax, natural, or good for people" and found no evidence to support these contrarian positions.

"Simply put, the science shows us that climate change due to emissions of greenhouse gases is a serious problem. Furthermore, due to the persistence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the lag in response of the climate system, there is a very high probability that we are already heading towards a future where warming will persist for thousands of years. Failing to insure against that high probability does not seem a gamble worth taking."<< (......More Wishy-Washy Liberal Junk Science?)

Deniers and skeptics have always claimed that there is not enough evidence to support AGW. Conversely deniers and skeptics cannot offer alternative answers that have enough evidence to pass the same muster. All in all, we can only control the AGW anyway, so why wouldn't we try?

Below is a website of 100+ deniers/skeptics claims dis-proven with links to peer reviewed data:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Easy, actually read the IPCC report with a critical eye. One of the best ways to disprove AGW is with the work that has been done by climate scientists. I mean, when the IPCC rewrites history to say that all past warming periods over the past 12,000 where only regional etc. It starts to raise flags.

Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but weather and climate are interrelated. Weather is what happens now, climate is what occurs over a period of time.

Finally, what else are we to say when the climate scientists use models as proof but they only report the extremes? Also, these same climate scientists only report that there is no positives about a warming climate and it is all gloom and doom.

Using actual observational data, Lindzen & Choi, 2009 demonstrated that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 is ~0.5°C.

Using actual observational data, Spencer & Braswell, 2010 demonstrated that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 is ~0.6°C.

CO2 has an atmospheric residence time of ~15 years. ~60% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are taken up by carbon sinks. This fraction has been relatively constant since ~1850 (Knorr, 2009).

Humans put about 8 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. That equates to a bit less than 4 ppmv. If carbon sinks take up 60% of the anthropogenic CO2 each year and the sinks don't know when the CO2 was emitted... By 2006, only 0.0000013 ppmv of 1991's emissions of 2.9 ppmv remained in the atmosphere. From 1991-2006, humans put 51.2 ppmv of CO2 into the air. The annual 60% decay rate took all but 2.5 ppmv of that 51.2 ppmv out of the air.

Plant stomata and Greenland ice cores both show that CO2 levels have routinely been between 330 ppmv and 390 ppmv during the Holocene, during interstadials of the last Pleistocene glaciation and during the previous interglacial (Sangamonian/Eemian).

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Cli...

The carbon cycle does not drive the climate cycle. The climate cycle drives the carbon cycle.

Man and all of his carbon emissions falls into the noise level.

Even if we assume that mankind was responsible for all of the CO2 above 350 ppmv, the climate sensitivity (0.304°C) to 390 ppmv is statistically indistinguishable from the climate sensitivity (0.210°C) to 350 ppmv. That's a difference of 0.094°C - A number too small to accurately measure... The RSS and UAH interpretations of the satellite data routinely differ by more than 0.094°C.

AGW is based on corrupt/manipulated data...... Period!

The Warming enthusiasts can preach and push their smoke and mirror arguments, but simply put.... Bad Data = Bad Science.

There is none

Whether shifts all the time , 100yrs ago some places were hotter and some colder that's a fact!