Exactly what weather patterns, temperature, events over the next 10 years would DISPROVE global warming?

[Westbrook36]

Is the theory of global warming science? How can it be science if you can't disprove it? At that point, isn't it like a religion? Since ALL outcomes prove global warming, it's not a science and it's a religion instead, it's the same argument as trying to prove or disprove God..

This thread is very simple. I am hoping believers of global warming will actually engage me and answer the following question:

What are the sequence of weather events that could happen in the next 10 years that would disprove global warming?

Thanks in advance.

[Kosher Ham]

You are normally so much better than this. Ugh.

[PleaseBlitz]

Translation: I really don't have a :hump:ing clue.

[Westbrook36]

What do you mean? I want to understand other's viewpoints. I want someone to rationally tell me exactly what events/weather patterns would make them change their mind in regard to global warming.

I thought of this because friends of mine told me that the ridiculous snows and arctic air that has hampered the North East recently was due to global warming. This may be true.....I don't know. I'm curious if anything will DISPROVE global warming.

[elkabong82]

You'd have to see ice galciers and polar caps forming and enlarging as opposed to melting and breaking apart as they are now. You'd have to see areas in the high North re-freeze essentially. I think if that happened it would throw a wrench in the globalarming theory. Then again I think the only way it can happen is if the global temperature lowered to the point where those things can re-freeze as opposed to melt. If that happened naturally, without a significant drop in global temperature, then that could disprove the global warming, I think.

I'm no expert, so this is my best guess at the thinly-veiled OP.

[PleaseBlitz]

Then we'd have global cooling threads, huh?

[twa]

You'd have to see ice galciers and polar caps forming and enlarging as opposed to melting and breaking apart as they are now. .

Study out recently confirms just that from what I understand...honestly don't know on the refreezing

[PeterMP]

A non-positive warming trend when other factors related to temperature (e.g. solar output, volcanoes, etc) are taken into account.

With satellite data we can actually say something even more general than that with respect to the imbalance between the radiation coming in from the sun and radiation escaping into space (this is better in my opinion because as I've pointed out more than one time it is possible (and in my opinion even likely) that the energy is being transferred in the system to something other than heat, but of course no matter what the energy is doing it is unlikely to be good for us.

Evidence that despite the physics that are over 100 years old that for some reason CO2 didn't actually absorb infra-red radiation and increase the length of time that thermal radiation stays in the atmosphere could be discovered.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 07:49 AM ----------

Study out recently confirms just that from what I understand...honestly don't know on the refreezing

Global sea ice anomally.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/monckton-skewers-truth/#more-3289

[TradeTheBeal!]

None. 10 years is not near enough time to draw any real statistical conclusions or certainties.

[IHOPSkins]

Didn't take long for the insults

To answer the Ops question....

If the TREND moves in a Cooling direction...that would disprove this theory

It is very apparent that the Global Warming proponents have constantly exaggerated the trend....if it reverses entirely (short and long term).....game over

Nothing short of that would stop the Movement

Of course....we could waite another 10 years and start hearing "Ice Age"...... Again

[Springfield]

None. 10 years is not near enough time to draw any real statistical conclusions or certainties.

This would be my exact answer.

10 years is far too small a sample size. The earth is always going to be warming or cooling, the global mean temperature won't stay stagnant. It never has and it never will. If there was some sort of evidence to support a "global cooling" then you'd have fanatics out there saying that we are causing that as well.

The meat and beans of the argument is whether or not this "warming" is man-made or not. If it is, how do we stop it? If we can reverse it, how do we prevent ourselves from going into another ice age? If it isn't, what are we all bickering about?

[Corcaigh]

Global sea ice anomally.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/monckton-skewers-truth/#more-3289

What a totally miss-representative picture of the data you present. Here's what the data looks like to conservatives.

[ATTACH]45128[/ATTACH]

[Metalhead]

I'm not sure you can get exact patterns, temperatures and events...weather can barely be forecast accurately for three days lol. This past week In my area we went from expecting 10+ inches of snow to barely a dusting within 36 hours.

[Monk81skins]

What are the sequence of weather events that could happen in the next 10 years that would disprove global warming?

I'm not sure you can get exact patterns, temperatures and events...weather can barely be forecast accurately for three days lol. This past week In my area we went from expecting 10+ inches of snow to barely a dusting within 36 hours.

This thinking bugs me. You can't help but talk about weather, specifically weather in a small area. what scientist are attempting to talk about is GLOBAL climate. For example, in 2010 (i think january), due to all the snowstorms on the east coast, some of the media (fox news) were laughing and saying where's all this Global warming, bla, bla. But what they were failing to mention was that in the southern hemisphere it was the warmest January ever recorded. In fact, 2010 was the warmest year on record (or tied with the warmest year). It's as simple as measuring a rise/drop in global temperatures over a long period of time.

[Larry]

Personally? I don't think it's possible to "prove" one way or another. I mean, not in the way that, say, Newton's Laws of Motion can be proven in a laboratory where a scientist can create an artificial experiment in which all forces are known with mathematical precision.

Does that mean it's not science? Nope. There are lots of scientists who study systems in which it's physically impossible to account for every force acting on the system.

The law of supply and demand has never been proven in an isolated laboratory experiment, either. Anybody think we should pretend it doesn't exist?

Can anybody tell me, with mathematical certainty, what the federal deficit will be, next year? Anybody think we should ignore it?

No one has ever shown, with exact, precise, steps, that smoking causes cancer. Anybody doubt that it does?

IMO, we can have science that suggests that global warming is happening. (And we do.) Proves? Never with complete certainty.

[PeterMP]

None. 10 years is not near enough time to draw any real statistical conclusions or certainties.

We can find support for or against global warming with data based on 10 years even if it is not significant.

Over the last 30 years, there have been several ten year periods w/o significant warming. The key is the rate of warming is significant if extrapolated over longer periods of time (15 or 20 years), or there is a reason those 10 years are anamolous, such as things related to El Nino, volcanoes, or solar output.

For example, the period of 1998-2007 showed a very small amount of warming that would have to be extended over VERY long periods of time to show significant warming.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

However, 1998 was a very anamolous year based on the satelite data (the link I've given) and was easily the warmest year at the time and was a year with a strong El Nino which we know cause temporary warming.

So if you asked somebody in 1998 if the trend of warming from 1998 would continue, the answer would have been no. And you can see the effect of 1998 on the trend by moving forward to 1999 and the rate of warming goes up or moving back to 1997 and dropping 1998 out of the analysis and the rate of warming goes up.

The other thing that happened during those ten years was a decrease in solar output.

So if we cherry pick a bad starting date, and a time where other factors have negatively affected temperature, we see very little warming.

Now, 2010 according to the satellite data (another year with an El Nino) was nearly as warm as 1998 so we are starting from another high point (though it isn't as high as the other nearby years as 1998).

If for some reason we end at a "low" point (e.g. volcano eruption or continued decreases in solar output (though that would be worrisome), then we might expect to see a pretty small trend in the increases of global temperatures as we did from 1998-2007.

However, if there isn't a reasonable increasing trend that will be significant over 15-20 years, as most 10 year periods in the last 30+ years have been, and we can't explain why that is the case based on science, then that would be a huge problem for basic global warming science.

While ten years of data doesn't frequently allow us to draw significant conclusions, we can either support or not support the basic climate change theory with it.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 02:49 PM ----------

What a totally miss-representative picture of the data you present. Here's what the data looks like to conservatives.

Somebody seriously plotted the same data like this (the red line):

And then claimed it didn't show a trend, without realizing that the axis values they were using were preventing them from seeing the trend:

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=13368

And then when called on it said:

"Apologize to someone with an axis stretching nature trick? I don't think so."

[btfoom]

Hey Peter (and others), have you guys read about the Glory spacecraft (est launch date is Feb 2011). It will study how the sun and airborne particles called aerosols affect Earth's climate.

I believe that in the next 5-10 years, the data from this spacecraft will go along way to showing how the sun really affects Global Warming (either way) and will be extremely useful in future weather models.

For more information, see: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Glory/main/index.html and http://glory.giss.nasa.gov/.

The results should be very interesting.