doG

Nope. That lumps all the CO2 together, all the methane, all soil and dust, all black carbon, etc. while trying to show that only sun and volcanoes are natural forcings. Why doesn't it show how much of the CO2, methane, soil and dust, etc. occur naturally, i.e. non-anthropogenic? That chart does not truly reflect anthropogenic vs natural forcings. The OP said, "Anthropogenic forcings are the primary cause". That statement is not supported by that chart, we're still waiting for evidence that does support it.

Where has he pointed to one paper that proves anthorpogenic forcings from anthorpogenic CO2 drive warming more than increased solar activity? Where has he pointed to one paper that proves anthorpogenic forcings drive warming more than increased solar activity, natural methane and natural CO2 combined, i.e. anthorpogenic forcings are predominate?

Now, where is your supporting evidence that anthorpogenic forcings are greater than natural forcings from say natural methane or increased solar activity in the '90's? Where is your evidence that anthorpogenic CO2 is greater than natural CO2? Where is your evidence that anthorpogenic contributions are greater even than that caused by the increased water vapor from a warmer climate resulting from any possible increased solar output. Where are your charts showing the amount of forcings from other causes to prove that they are not predominate. To claim that anthorpogenic forcings outnumber natural forcings in both scope and intensity places the burden on you to produce the data to prove that your claim is true, not on others to disprove it. That sounds like the old "God is real because no one can disprove him" argument. You might as well claim that leprechauns and goblins are real too if you're going to claim that they are until someone can disprove them.

Precisely. The OP claims humans are the predominate cause which suggests to me that humans contribute more than anything else. So far I've not seen amy proof to support the claim that humans cause more than any other cause.

Does that really mean anything? Search on phanerozoic carbon dioxide levels. You will find that CO2 levels were 1000-2000 ppm through the Triassic and Jurassic eras and 4000-5000 ppm around the Silurian period. Anyone could crop any piece of one of these charts with a rise on it and claim the maximum is an all time high for the era shown...

Don't the missiles have to fly from the ground up to space to begin with? Shoot it down at 30,000 feet then...

I wasn't really thinking about using the missile defense system. Put a carrier in the neighborhood when he's ready to launch and let a couple of Navy birds shoot it down as soon as it's in international air space....

We should encourage them to shoot some more so we can shoot them down. Maybe then Kimmee boy will learn that his attempts are futile....

This is a great example of someone slicing the data to support their viewpoint instead of looking at the whole picture. Here the writer tries to compare a 20 year span to a 100 year average' date=' apples and oranges really. Why not compare a 20 year span to another 20 year span, say 1980-2000 to 1916-1936. Then we find that the earlier span had 175% greater warming trend than the current span that the author wants us to look at. Picking and choosing the data to fit a hypothesis while disregarding the rest of it is not science and this is evidence of the type of distorted analysis global warming proponents are using to prove their point. Perhaps some of our man-made problems-proponents can explain that earlier trend and how it was caused by man too. For those that think the end is near, search on phanerozoic carbon dioxide levels. While current charts indeed show CO2 levels as high as they've been in the last 20 million years you'll see that they are also some of the lowest levels in time when we look back 50 million years or more.

So we cannot say man IS the predominate cause, we can only theorize that he is. IMO such a theory ignores past warming cycles as being part of the equation.

Conclusive proof on this topic would be proof that is sufficient to show without doubt that the amount of global warming predominately caused by man's actions is greater than all other causes combined. I do not believe we can show that man's contributions are greater than any caused by solar variation. The Earyth has gone through many cycles from global tropical temperatures to global ice ages without man. To conclude at this point that the current warming cycle must be predominately caused by man is not science IMO.

Those which draw conclusions from assumptions are ignoring science. Science doesn't draw conclusions without conclusive proof!

Please quote where I said that. I think if you look again you will see that I said, "It seems a leap of faith to blame it all on man". Man contributes but there is no conclusive evidence that man is the predominate cause.

Hey, I'm just asking. Sea levels were higher then and there were no polar ice caps. Could any of the causes then be causes now? Does solar variation have anything to do with it? It seems a leap of faith to me to blame it all on man. Maybe someone could turn this into a new religion like L. Ron Hubbard did with dianetics and make so tax free money off of it.

What a stupid waste of taxpayer time and money. I hope the Senators that voted for this amendment find themselves voted out....

I wonder, was the global warming of the Jurassic period caused by man as well?

I was searching for the recent arp thread I saw here and this thread turned up when I searched for hosts. Then I saw 1veedos remark and thought it deserved a remark in return.....

There's many like him that just move from site to site espousing such stuff. The same handles show up at sciforums.com, physicsforums.com, forum.physorg.com, etc.. How many have had to endure members like ps2huang? S/he just happens to be one I remember running into in 3 or 4 of them.....

They do seem to have some class though. I couldn't find any examples of them bad mouthing this site or any others. You can find stupid, juvenile physics claims at just about any science site I've visited including this one. Just because the ignorant can find a site and post there does not make the site bad, does it?

That doesn't sound like a measurement of the speed of gravity. I really don't see how you could measure it's speed, as opposed to the force, without being able to suddenly make a mass appear or disappear. If the sun went poof we wouldn't see it for about 8 minutes. How long would it be before we felt it?

But the force of gravity is not conveyed by electrons and we don't know what, if anything, it is conveyed by. Since we know so little about it I don't think we cannot even speculate that the speed of gravity, if it exists, is limited to the speed of light.

OK, so change the mass to the smallest particle. Now what carries the force from one side of that particle to the other and at what speed if the particle is at maximum compression? In short, what is the limit of the equation we are evaluating? I believe it is higher than C.

Say the mass is a single electron. If you push on one side of the electron then how long does it take the force to appear at the other side? I'd say instantaneously unless the electron itself is compressible...

The only thing slowing it down though is compressibility even though materials like diamond and osmium are regarded as incompressible. To say it cannot be faster is to say that these materials have no compressible limit such that no force applied to one end of their structure could appear at the other end simultaneously. I'm leery that this claim could actually be proven.