Why not just prove the skeptics wrong?

Question

Since we know co2 is the main driving factor in global warming, and we know how much co2 causes warming, and we know the amount that co2 is increasing every year, why not just prove the skeptics as fools by telling us what the climate will be next month, next year, 2 years from now, and 5 years from now, and show us your work to how you came to this conclusion?

Should be a simple task., And after you show them wrong, who would be foolish to argue with you anymore?

Just prove the world is getting warmer, by how much, and show your work.

What could be so hard about that?

And don't tell us that's weather and doesn't count, global warming can only be predicted 50 years out - that's a bogus cop out.

Answer 1

First, congrats for being the top contributer. That's got to drive the alarmist crazy. Good job. Clearly if CO2 were the driver, it wouldn't have cooled in the 60s and 70s. They will never admit that they can't predict the climate because that is a slippery slope they know they would slide down. The same is true for the slippery slope of admitting that there may be some benefits to warming. I think we will look back at these alarmists in 20 years the same as we do to those that tried to push Y2K.

Answer 2

It never ceases to amaze me why an intelligent person such as yourself seems so intent on portraying yourself as some kind of fool.

The difference between weather and climate has been explained to you over and over again - if you refuse to accept that they're two different things then that's your problem, you might as well be arguing that black is white and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

Climate is trends, we know what the trends will be next month, next year, 2 years from now, and 5 years from now - the trend is one of warming. Short of a major catastrophe such as a massive volcano, nuclear war or asteroid impact then it's a physical imposibility for it to be anything else.

If you stick a metal bar into a fire it's a fact that the bar will get hotter but no-one will say that in 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes the temperature of the bar will be X, Y or Z because there are so many variables that can't be precisely accounted for (the metal, mass, composition, density, conductivity, prevailing weather, ambient temperature, rate of combustion, material being combusted, oxygen availability, radiation loss, conductivity loss etc). The premise of your argument is that because no-one could say exactly what the temperature of the bar will be then it's not going to get hotter.

I can tell you with a degree of accuracy in excess of 99% that next month the average global temperature will be between 14.353 and 14.753°C and that next year the AGT will be between 14.393 and 14.793°C. But this is completely meaningless, it's just an extrapolation of numbers from a table with a maximum variation applied to the current mean - it's statistics not climatology.

I could have done this every month since September 1983 and been 100% accurate. It would look good on paper and I could probably pass myself off as some kind of prophet with mystical powers to see into the future but at the end of the day it's nothing more than statistical probabilities and adopting such an approach would be deceiptful and unscientific.

EDIT 1: I'm going to go against Dana here and bet that Jim gets Best Answer. Any more bets?

EDIT 2: If you want the skeptics to be proved wrong then please feel free to come up with any argument at all, anything, it doesn't matter. The skeptics are still running with a 100% record of being wrong. Accepting that it's wrong is of course an entirely different matter.

Answer 3

Trevor, I wanted to give you a Thumbs up, but then your second edit, made me cringe. I don't feel you need to lower yourself to the level of how some of the average AGW believers act. Your above them. It won't make me change my mind about what I believe is happening with our climate, but if I'm trying to hold myself from sinking as low as some people on both sides of the coin, I would hope you'd do the same.

This is a interesting question. I just feel a bit like Trevor on this one that they could state possible global temperature increases with a slight degree of accuracy, but it wouldn't prove them right or wrong on their analysis.

The thing I can't deny, is that the burden of proof is on the skeptical scientists on this one. And their getting hounded, because they possibly can't get funding to study it, except by other companies or benefactors that might have a vested interest in it not being caused by human activity or not at the extent that AGW scientists believe it to be.

Edit: I gave you a thumbs up, because I reread your second edit again and I know understand what you are trying to say. I just don't believe they are 100% wrong. And when did AGW become and emperical theroy?

Answer 4

Gimme a break...of course "they" can prove their model based upon past climate. I can also prove that, based upon hindsight and with certain scientific "modeling" that my 1971 Ford was the best choice for me at the time.

Keep on believing GW, buy into their high priced products, algore is laughing all the way to the bank. He couldn't buy the presidency, but he did get a powerful following of fools.

GLOOM AND DOOM! Have no fear, though. I, and a few others like me, will have a blast in 10, 20, and even 30 years from now (for those still hanging on to gw by then) when we laugh in your face. I have a feeling you all are like groupies for the Rolling Stones - you will never go away even though the music is over rated, worn out hoopla from a drug induced time...just keep hanging on there, buddy!

Answer 5

You my friend pwned the GW supporters

Heck our meteorologist couldnt predict what the weather is going to be the next day... why should I believe some dude locked up in a cube playing with his models and adding and subtracting his own numbers to come up with a solution.

Answer 6

Next month is weather.

2 years from now (and on) has been done.

According to a combination of meteorology and climatology, global warming is set to accelerate rapidly after 2009, with with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0837368420070809

But this has already been done anyway. Scientists have used their models to accurately hindcast the climate over the past century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

And in 1988 when climate models were vastly less advanced than they are today, James Hansen accurately predicted the ensuing global warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

So clearly this question is a red herring, because scientists have already met your criteria.

*edit* Did Zero actually just say "pwned"? I bet he wins best answer LOL!

*edit* Jim might win it. He and Zero both stroked Jello's....ego and then provided the usual worthless gobbledygook. Mars is warming too, Trevor!

I'll stick with Zero though, because Jello strikes me as the kind of person who loves "pwnage" LOL!

Answer 7

Go look up complexity theory. And while you are at it, have the courage of your convictions and post here with your real identity.

Answer 8

They've been proven wrong. Over and over again.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

It is often true in science that you can't predict short term behavior, but can predict the long term.

Take a piece of Lead 210. It is physically impossible to say when any one atom will decay. And nothing is more sure than that, in 22.3 years, half of them will.

This is very basic science. Denying it only shows ignorance.

Answer 9

Last I heard, global warming had stopped, but it was due to start back up in 2009, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong, or the year after that if they are wrong,