4 years without Arctic Ice would make me look, unless the Antarctic Ice expanded to meet the difference. Of course, with all that ice on the bottom of the Earth, it would be very bottom heavy! (That last part is tongue in cheek for the more obtuse out there...)

and that is part of the problem. Please do not think I am completely against the theory, I am skeptical and do not fully trust anyone when it comes to such drastic measures proposed. Like MX stated pretty well, this is only one diagnosis (albeit from a VERY well respected Doctor!) but I look for other opinions.

The aha moments we want to see are not there and because of the nature of this, they will not be for a long long time as this is a gradual change. But we should be able to see some forecasting actually come true? They continually make predictions based on models that fail over and over. Once again, this is not to say they are wrong and it is not happening, but why should we trust these guys 100% with such a situation? It just seems more than a little odd to put soooo much faith in something so lacking so far.

Green Arrow wrote:4 years without Arctic Ice would make me look, unless the Antarctic Ice expanded to meet the difference.

Huh? No no, you misunderstand. 4 years without arctic ice would bolster AGW claims. I'm looking for happenstances that would make the white lab-coat guys scratch their heads and say, "Whoa. We got that one completely wrong. No global warming happening here. Our bad."

Again, if there is and can be no situation like this...then this is more about philosophy.

"Whoa. We got that one completely wrong. No global warming happening here. Our bad."

10 years of increasing concentrations of CO2 and other AGW gases coupled with 10 years of decreasing average termperatures...

I also misunderstood, but my answer is still similar, the skeptics will not see any aha moments since the time frame is so long but neither will the alarmists for the same reason. We have one year of cooling and it means nothing, two consecutive? Three? Four? Seems there is no real aha "moment" it all comes down to time and even then, the bar is simply moved. The past decade (or so ...7 years is close?) saw a general downward trend in temps but was punctuated by some real warm years as well, and the trend was very minor and still warmer than many past decades. This is not enough (nor did I ever expect it to be enough) but it shows evidence counter to what the alarmists have predicted, More CO2 means warmer temps, a continuous rise in CO2 levels should mean a continuous rise in temps but it is not the case. It flies in the face of simple logic but this is no simple matter and much is not yet understood. The alarmists point this out, we know precious little about the oceans and other things (of course). But then they point to how certain they are of their other theories. I just don't see how they can (without laughing) claim they have so much they simply do not understand (and I do not fault them here, they are learning of course) but then turn around and claim their position is so unassailable and correct?

I just don't see anything that will get their opinions changed, look at how adamant our Redscape alarmists are here, how can you change someone who believes in this much as a religion?

But Ricky, we have had continued CO2 increases and the average has indeed dropped. It is almost 10 years but not every year has dropped (and I know, I know, the average drop is "insignificant" but still it is not rising as predictions would have us think) do you actually require ten straight years uninterrupted? With weather the way it is there is always ups and downs and I am also "guilty" of the same thing. Of course there are fluctuations in both directions and to expect this would be like expecting to never break a hot or a cold temperature record in any given year, we break records on both sides all the time, things fluctuate always.

I see. I misunderstood what would make ME assume AGW was possible. My apologies.

Tom:

But Ricky, we have had continued CO2 increases and the average has indeed dropped.

Sez who?
Read this TOM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

The complexity of climate change on our dynamic weather system is explained well in this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html

The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.

The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.

That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century. Most forecasts have failed to predict these colder winters, however, because the primary drivers in their models are the oceans, which have been warming even as winters have grown chillier. They have ignored the snow in Siberia.

You've got to wonder how long the NYT held on to that piece before it published it. I read it just as we were preparing for snow-ma-geddon on Boxing Day. Doubt that timing was coincidence.

Funny thing with data, especially for alarmists, when the data is not in their favor, find new data. I am going by what was posted earlier and accepted by the IPCC. So what I am reading here is basically nothing will convince Ricky that warming is over. He accepts the IPCC as gospel and quotes them often, yet when their datra does not seem to fit, then go to a new set by NASA. This conflicting data (manipulated and "normalized" data by the way) should make one at least wonder what is real, what is true....nope, the lemmings listen to their leader and follow right off the cliff. Ricky, do you ever question things that don't make sense? I know you do, hows come you accept everything these guys say without so much a question? You posted yourself they know little of oceans and their effects on climate, shouldn't that make you question how they can therefore be so very positive of their positions and theories? No doubts? None at all?

I think Tommy is just hoping that with a little Global Warming Northern NY becomes a true four season locale. You know summer there lasts for a few weeks from about July 20th to August 10th. I expect he really wants to swim in Lake Ontario in June without a wetsuit and is trying to convince you all that Global Warming all one big hoax so he can personally enjoy the fruits of a fossil fuel based economy. Hey Ricky, I imagine there might be a personal upside for you too. ;-)

PCHiway wrote:...there ought to be no trouble in coming up with scenario breakers.

If you accept that there's been an anomalously fast rise in global temps recently, the way to really damage the case for AGW is to come up with an explanation for that warming that makes more sense than AGW. It's been tried. The scientific consensus we argue about is that AGW explains the observations better than any alternative. If you want to try to throw cold water on the part of the argument that says unnatural heating is occurring, things are not so simple. You're up against a huge variety of observations that combine to form an inductive proof. Even those who, like Freeman Dyson, have doubts about other parts of the equation, generally accept the fact of weird warming. To counter the inductive proof would require a similarly impressive mass of observations to the contrary, not just one "good one" like 10 straight years of decline as recorded by one set of measuring devices. No one set of devices measures the entire planet. This be a complex hunk of molecules, the earth. You can't just stick your finger up in the air and measure its temperature.

You want to make science something like math. It ain't. What it is, as I posted earlier, is the sum of what we've learned about how to go about learning new things of practical value. Does that sound like math? In the case of AGW, the best we can do - the sum of all we've learned about getting answers that are of as much practical use as possible - is create an IPCC. Your smoking gun would be a real "Climategate" - unearthing of emails (or whatever) showing that the thousands of scientists involved in IPCC and all the work leading into it, and the hundreds of journal editors who've published their stuff, have been colluding to pass off an untruth. That would be the simplest way to go. The scientific way is to assemble, within the IPCC process, all the bits and pieces of evidence that support an alternative hypothesis, and follow the IPCC procedure whereby selected experts weigh their cogency against the bits and pieces that suggest AGW is true.

This process could be nit-picked to death. It has been nit-picked to death! But it's a MUCH better process than a conclave of bloggers or a rump of ideologues.

Put all the money paid to lawyers to defend climate change existance/denial towards SOLAR. The lawyers lose out - boo hoo.

PCHiway wrote:Looking at it philosphically, if I remember my Hegel correctly then AGW proponents are in a big mess. If a thesis contains no flaw then there can be no antithesis. Without the antithesis...no synthesis.

Quite so. Science has it's own terminology for this stuff. It is called 'falsifiability'. A hypothesis is not scientific if it cannot be falsified (hence, intelligent design by a supernatural power is not falsifiable and so is not regarded as a valid scientific 'Theory')

So, if 'AGW' is not falsifiable, then it too is not a valid theory.

'AGW' is not a single theory. It is based on lots of theories and even some 'Laws' (a scientific Law is a Theory that is so strong that despite being falsifiable, it has been proven to be true, which itself is easier said than done). So each of those components is falsifiable, and if shown to be false would then mean that 'AGW' is at the very least in question (a single component being shown to be false may not bring down the whole thing as there are lots of parallel streams which build in redundancy).

So,. if the physical properties of CO2 are not the same as science has told us, then that would take a big chunk out of the theory. If someone could show that CO2 does not absorb heat in the way that our current knowledge suggests, then there would be a major challenge to AGW as it currently stands (it would also put a big spanner in a lot of other things in other areas of science, by the way).

But AGW includes at high level the following theses:

1) The climate is changing
2) That change includes an underlying trend, which is to get warmer on average over time
3) Greenhouse gases are one of the major factors in climate
4) Levels of greenhouse gases have changed in recent times
5) Those changes in levels of greenhouse gases are causing a large part of the underlying trend
6) Human activity produces greenhouse gases
7) The human contribution is a major factor in the change in levels of gases in the atmosphere

Now, each of those statements is falsifiable (or, to use your terms, has at least one 'antithesis'). Let's run through one thing for each of that list which would falsify it:

1) We find that the climate is not changing
2) We find that there are trends, but warming is not one of them
3) We discover that other factors (solar effects, geothermal/tectonic) are the primary drivers in current trends
4) Levels of gases are not much different to 200 years ago
5) The changes in levels are not enough to cause climatic change, or are offset by other factors to such a degree as to be of minimal net impact
6) Humanity does not cause more of these gases to be emitted than absorbed
7) Other sources far outweigh the net change in the levels of greenhouse gases.

Now, this is just a short list. There is more to it, and possible multiple ways to falsify each thesis. But there's a start.

Min X - you are actually wrong. In this respect, all science is like Maths. The difference is that for a lot of maths there is a proof that a falsifiable Theory is not false, and so it becomes a Law. That it has been proven not to be false does not make a Theory unfalsifiable. Many other sciences have theories which are falsifiable, which we have not yet proven to be completely true, but at the same time we haven't been able to find them to be false.

AGW is falsifiable.

That commentators claim otherwise, or claim that it is not false does not alter that fact. In short, PCH, AGW does have antithesis. Lots of it.

GMTom wrote:Funny thing with data, especially for alarmists, when the data is not in their favor, find new data. I am going by what was posted earlier and accepted by the IPCC. So what I am reading here is basically nothing will convince Ricky that warming is over. He accepts the IPCC as gospel and quotes them often, yet when their datra does not seem to fit, then go to a new set by NASA.

The GISS dataset owned by NASA is not 'new'. It's been collated for quite some time, independently from the CRU dataset. Both have been used by research that has ended up as part of IPCC reports.

You accuse Ricky of not making sense. It does not make sense to say that the NASA data has not already been used by the IPCC. The IPCC does not own either set of data, and doesn't own much data for itself at all. It pulls together the research done by thousands of people, each using different data sources, including the two main temperature datasets, CRU and GISS.

We know you believe CRU to be fatally flawed, and why (Climategate emails & leak). But what about GISS? What makes you sure it is flawed?