Multiphoton mixing can be done with anisotropic crystals in a physics lab, so the process is theoretically possible. I am not aware of any examples in biology, but I am not a marine biologist. If there were an example in biology, molecular biologists could genetically engineer a plankton that emitted 470 nm when the ocean temperature was above normal and died off when the ocean cooled to non-anthropomorphic levels. In short, a biological thermostat.
For me, if temperatures starting increasing (with NO MORE UPWARD ADJUSTMENTS) close to what the IPCC predicted I would say I was proven wrong that AGW is something we should worry about.
I notice that only one alarmist has given anything specific while most skeptics have said what would change their minds. That's the problem in climatology as well. Nothing will prove to most climatologists that the CAGW theory is incorrect.
Being skeptical is never wrong. Pretending to know something that isn't knowable with available information and technology does come with the risk of being wrong.
If I got more information that indicated CO2 was suddenly the driver of the climate, even though it clearly wasn't normally the driver in the past, then my skepticism would lessen.
For me, it would take a prolonged period of predictions of AGW issues to begin to occur as predicted. Demonstrate a model that can make accurate predictions even 6 months to 1 year out and I will begin to believe that models ability to make accurate predictions 5 and 10 years out.
I will of course always be concerned about drift, the software calculation version, in the model. However the more time the model has with actual accurate predictions the father out into time you can believe its longer term projections are accurate.
Say you complete the model today. Begin to make predictions based on the model and its inputs. Right now I would be HIGHLY skeptical of its accuracy. Six months from now AFTER all of its predictions are demonstrated to be accurate I will believe predictions that do out for another 6 months and will have a reasonable amount of confidence in its 1 year predictions. One year from now after all predictions are demonstrated to be accurate I will have significant confidence in its ability to make predictions for the next year and a heightened acceptance of 2 and 3 year predictions. for me it would follow a semi-geometric chart. The longer the model is demonstrated be accurate the more confidence have that it will remain accurate and be capable of making accurate predictions farther and farther out.
The problem here of course is time. This will take many years. Yes I require documented proof of accuracy, but that is just me. I am en engineer and trust no data that is not verifiable.
Outside of this, I would have to start seeing event occur that have never occurred before. Say 100 degree summer temps in Ottawa Canada for several days straight. I will have to see this AND have NO other explanation. Even then I will have some skepticism as that is in my nature. IF I see this AND a model predicted it, then I would pay MUCH closer attention to that model.
for me, to this time I have not seen nor heard of any model or set of predictions that can meet this standard. Thus this is hwy I am and shall remain a skeptic for the foreseeable future. Six months from now? Not sure, but I would bet I don't change my mind on this issue.
If the major players in the pro-AGW movement, and I mean everybody from Al Gore to Michael Mann, showed a real commitment to reducing their fossil fuel consumption by stopping jet trips and substantially reducing their CO2-based lifestyle, I would take this a lot more seriously.
Most AGW supporters would not admit AGW was not true, even if there was hundreds of feet of ice on top of their city, there is lots of evidence that AGW is not accurate, and very little empirical evidence to support AGW.
You only have to listen to the answers here, I say there is a pause in warming, I am told it is a damn lie, I say Co2 lags temperature, it is a damn lie.
If one set of information came along that supported AGW or supported anti AGW it would just be ignored/denied by those who don't want to change their minds.
It's not about proving it right or wrong, these are absolutes that only the scientific illiterate like jim deal in, scientists are well aware they can and have made mistakes and there are inconsistencies in some aspects of what is happening, but mistakes and errors are not the global conspiracies deniers try to weave them into, any large field of research is going to have mistakes but all those fields continue to move forward and learn from their mistake, only climate science seems to have fools at the edges whining about this person or that person trying to take over the world, or whatever this weeks denier conspiracy is.
The bulk of climate sconce is solid and deniers have (except in their own fantasy blogs) made no dent in that science.
E.g the rant about the "long discredited hockey-stick" ask a denier why it has been discredited and you will either get no answer, abuse or links to yet more blogs, because in the real world the hockey-stick has simply not been discredited. The denier case is full of this sort of BS.
Looking for one piece of information to prove AGW wrong is what denialists do.
"Look, this glacier is growing." - Just ignore all the glaciers that are shrinking.
"Look, this year is cooler than last year."
"Look, the Sun is entering a cool phase."
One piece of information will not prove AGW wrong, unless one were to think like a denialist and ignore all the evidence that says that global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hum...
To believe that global warming stopped, rather than reversing, for that stopping to last for thirty years.
To believe that it had started cooling, for the cooling trend to last long enough to be statistically significant. The cooling would have to match the warming that occured from 1996 to the present day, in a time frame of no more than 17 years.
Someone come up with a better explanation than humans for the warming.
There are too many independent scientific studies all pointing the same conclusion for one example to be even remotely close to sufficient. Thousands of solid scientific findings over many decades by many thousands of different researchers would all have to be somehow erroneous for the same reason.
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
It is difficult to find "one example" that would do all that and thereby disprove the decades-old solid consensus.
This is almost like asking "Can you think of one example of information that would prove you wrong about the earth being round?"
Practically the only conceivable disproof would be some kind of conspiratorial hoax, organized on a scale never seen before in history, and then revealed in great detail. Here is one example of such a hoax: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Edit: Instead of trying to split semantic hairs, Chem, I suggest you rethink what you really want to ask. Don't take it from me. Look at the answer here from Antarctice, a climate specialist who knows what he is talking about. Your "silly example" is actually a good example of the silliness to which anti-science denial logically must lead. It doesn't work, of course, as solid disproof. How would alien heat rays change the massive scientific evidence for the heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gases, or the concentration of CO2 in the air, or in the oceans, or millions of years of natural climate change / greenhouse cycles?
Knowing that no one was making money off of it would go a long way to convince me.
Can you think of one concrete example of information that, if present, would substantially change your mind about AGW? I don't want something vague like "more information", I want a *specific* hypothetical scenario that would lead you to believe you were significantly in error about the existence, causes, future projections, and/or probable effects of warming.
For a slightly silly example, if I discovered that previously undetected aliens were aiming giant (and previously undetected) heat rays at planet Earth, and that their activity closely matched the known temperature record, I would conclude that scientists were significantly wrong about the causes of global warming.
Bonus points for listing a few scenarios that would lead you to conclude different things (eg that global warming had stopped, that global warming was never caused by humans...)
Yes. There could be warming.
How about you?
