Now, if Earth started to cool, as in showed statistically signifcant cooling, it would depend on why Earth would be cooling, which could be due to
1. A large number of volcanic eruptions over such a period.
2. A bigger drop in solar activity than most experts believe to be possible.
3. A breakthrough in cold fusion power.
4. If carbon dioxide's ability to absorb infrared became saturated.
1 and 2 would not prove me wrong, because I never believed that carbon dioxide was the only influence on climate. And when solar or volcanic activity returns to normal, I would expect global warming to return with a vengence.
If 3 were to happen, global warming would be solved. However, if global warming stopped immediately, then so much for the global warming in the pipeline.
4 would prove me wrong about global warming.
One other thing could prove me wrong about global warming; a better explanation for the warming than carbon dioxide. Something like these graphs.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/i...
But graphs which show a better fit to temperature trends when the new forcing is included and carbon dioxide is excluded, than if carbon dioxide is included.
If history did not look like this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/w...
OK, changing history is difficult (unless you are NASA GISS). So if something happened outside that temperature envelope. Note that the previous interglacials were warmer than now. So we have a way to go yet.
Another thing, if CO2 preceded the temperature rise. Currently, the ice core records show the opposite. in fact, I believe that at all timescales temperature rise precedes CO2 increase. However, if it proved that the ice cores had been interpreted incorrectly (and I would not rule out developments there by any means) then that would cause a very serious re-think. Ideally, the first condition would still have to apply, though.
If Sagebrush could read, he might realize that hundreds of scientists over the past century "proved that AGW is a scientific problem" long before the fossil fuel industry brainwashed his gullible head into believing that science = politics.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
Here's something to think about : http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/...
- "... Geologic processes are not in equilibrium. Geologic processes are one set of drivers for climate and therefore climate cannot be in equilibrium. This makes assessing any cumulative human impact on climate difficult. What is the range of natural global climatic variability? What percentage of this may be due to human-induced activities? We may perceive the activities of humans to have the greatest impact on global climate simply because we are the advanced life form on earth. Perhaps it is a human trait to assume that the consequences of mankind on global climate must be significantly more important than the impact of “natural processes.” Geology is the one scientific discipline that routinely works backward through significant periods of time to evaluate earth’s natural processes. Our discipline brings both data and interpretation to the debate of the past history of climate, greenhouse gases, and global temperature behavior. Geology also brings to the debate a collection of climate drivers including tectonism (large and small scale), volcanism, topography, glaciation, denudation, evolution of biota, the hydrologic cycle, carbon sequestration, and interactions between geologic and astronomic events. ..." -
- "... Several general statements are appropriate about natural systems. Climate can vary rapidly and over a range that can have a profound influence on human society. There are predictable geologic effects of climate change that occur in second through fourth order changes (Figure 1), such as sea-level changes, rates of glacial movement, ecosystem migration, methane hydrate formation, and agricultural productivity. Finally, we are able to predict that the next ice age cannot take place unless additional global warming occurs. Such warming must be sufficiently large so that the ice of the Arctic Ocean is thawed, thus providing a moisture source for the immense snow and ice accumulations necessary to build continental-scale glaciers (Ewing and Donn, 1956). ..." -
If the earth were truly warming. (It is cooling and has been for over a decade.)
If people, like Al Gore, weren't getting rich by promoting it.
If our governments were not getting more powerful and tyrannical by promoting it.
If the CO2 controlled the temperature, like Al Gore's movie said it did. (It was proven to be a farce.)
If someone could prove that AGW is a scientific problem, not a political movement.
DORK:
Aren't you the one who blocked several of us because you wanted only intelligent answers? Ha! Ha!
When it is shown to me that The Laws of Physics, Thermodynamics and Chemistry are fundamentally wrong on how ever increasing amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere would not have a warming effect on our planet beyond the natural climate variations within our climate. Then I will admit that I was substantially wrong about the AGWT. Me and almost every climatologist in the world would have to say we were substantially wrong about AGW.
The key word is evidence, non has ever been put forward, something verifiable and repeatable would be a start instead of waffle, hot air and some overpaid guys whose jobs depend upon it, being 'sure' that it's true.
If earths temperatures continued to rise steadily the same way CO2 in our atmosphere is rising, I might then believe in AGW
The truth is there is no solid evidence that Global Warming isn't Anthropogenic. It is basically a scientific fat that humans cause GW.
if you honestly want to know great information on GW and you want to know both sides watch this frontline PBS video
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...
Enjoy and hope this helps!
Earth has always warmed or cooled. Where I live, just 25,000 years ago (a nanosecond in geological time), we were under a half mile of ice.
Think about it.
What evidence, if present, would suggest to you that you were in some substantial way wrong about AGW? Please state your hypothetical evidence as clearly and specifically as possible (eg "if the 30-year trend of global average temperatures fell rather than rising" instead of "if it stopped warming")
The AWG has no facts to back up global worming. And they are grabbing at air now .
