Tim the plumber

Do any of them explain that the influence of human activity is very highly likely responsible for at least 50 % of the observed warming since 1950? That would need to be above 99% chance. Personally I think that is a low level of challenge.

So when a person posts the reasons why they are a glonbal warming skeptic on a thread asking for that and is challenged to provide evidence for a negative argument, you say that it is wrong of me to point out that the posative claim is the one which requires the substanciation. Generally in most science whatever you say is regarded as drivel unless you can back it up. Generally that's how science works. Does it work like that here? Oh, and sock pupet?? I don't know I would ask the mods to look into it but.....

And you have claimed that there are no peer-reviewed papers on the subject. This is clearly not true. On the subject certainly. I am asking for demonstratinmg that human cativity has been the cause fo increased temperature. Significanat influence will do. I don't think that is a very high bar to cross. I'll even lower it and say that a high certainty level will help a lot.

Hang on, you have a claim that the observed increase in world climate temperature is due to human activity. That's the claim. You cannot show any paper which substanciates that claim. We both know that. So the claim, speaking scientifically, has no evidence and falls. There is a lot of stuff published and there are a lot of people shouting about it but so what?

Can you find some peer reviewed paper which says catagorically that humanity is responsible for most of the observed warming since 1950? If not then ZVB's opinion is as good as yours. The link didn't work so I have found it here; http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf

And there was me thinking that the headlines from the report were that the problem was twice as bad as prviously thought... must be my faulty memory.

This sounds extremely catasrophic. To what depth do you expect this to happen? How much sheer tonnage of magnesium carbonate do you calculate will be reacted with CO2?

The figure of 2cm per year came from my reseach using wikipedia. This thread is asking what it would take to change your mind. It is very interesting that you are unable to answer. Another failure to answer. My wife has just asked if this is aimed at me or others. Clarity would be helpful. Please answer the question. Thanks. Great post. Again great post. I read into that that you are not worried by such a warming. What in that case would it take to cause you to see trouble in the expected increases in CO2? I, and all other skeptics are constantly challenged to prove the catastrophy hypothesis wrong. Trying to get an explaination of the mechanisms of such simple stuff as the projected sea level rise and the detail of what ice is vulnerable to melting are always met with avoidance. The consensus may have changed. It may be that the burden of proof has drastically shifted onto those predicting catastrophy. http://www.petitionproject.org/ Lots of scientists who are skeptical about the scary stuff.

There seems to be others who are also skeptical about this danger from CO2 thing; http://www.petitionproject.org/ 9,000 of them have Ph.D's. Maybe the consensus is the other way around.

I'll start; As a skeptic of this global warming catastrophe hypothesis I would need to see the climate's temperature rise at least to the mid point of the IPCC's predations by 2025. I would then need to see why that, and the further predictions, would be trouble. So far I have been told that a 2 degree rise in temperature will cause England to have more climate/weather related deaths and such. I consider this utter drivel because the evidence is that warmer places with similar levels of wealth have longer life expectancies than here. I have been told that Bangladesh will disappear beneath the waves. Again drivel. Every monsoon deposits at least 2cm of soil on top of the land whilst the worst case scenarios have a rise rate half of this. Even this rate of sea level rise has not happened. I have been told that there would be mass outbreaks of malaria or such diseases. I don't see that as real either due to the fact that rich places don't get it even in hot places. Malaria seems to be a poverty related disease, there used to be a problem with it in parts of the Netherlands. So that's my position. If you want to explain why that's wrong please do so on a new thread. It will give you a chance to get me to understand each point. Here please keep it to what it would take to change your mind.

And never ask any questions or you will be told that you are using logical falisies. That's why I'm a skeptic. If the AGW thing was right there would not be such a rabid response to those who disagree.

AQny chance I can post my points without being banned for not towing that alarmist line and haveing the temerrritory to ask reasonable question? I'd give it a snowball's chance in hell.

Swanson in post 36; In his writeup he only mentions polar feedbacks. Ice/snow melt and methane release are two that I know. His quote (apparently from a Hansen and Sato paper) says "Augmentation of peak Holocene temperature by even 1°C would be sufficient to trigger powerful amplifying polar feedbacks, leading to a planet at least as warm as in the Eemian and Holsteinian periods, making ice sheet disintegration and large sea level rise inevitable." (emphasis in the quote I grabbed) which means that he is very specifically talking about temperatures higher than human civilization has seen. You have just managed to demonstrate that you have accused me of using a logical falisy, that of talking about ice sheet disintegration first, whilst being clearly the one who brought up this logical falisy. You have then gone on the say that I'm out of order for not reading the paper. The paper which has not been cited. Well done! I strongly suggest you read your own rules.

Even if that is true how is it evidence that it will cause the ice sheets of Antarctica to disintergrate? Logical falisy? What paper? The OP has links to talks. Can you link to the paper if that's what we are talking about.

So you didn't read Wild Cobra's bit where he explained that then,

So do you think that these or other feedbacks are at all capable of causing a 12 degree c temperature rise?

Isn't that one of your logical falsies? Just because he is talking about a 1 degree temperature and then he talks about ice sheet disintegration does not mean that he has actual evidence that this would be a higher temperature than humanity has ever seen. I would like to see the proper boring explanation of which ice is actually vulnerable to melting from a 1 degree temperature rise. Would it be the Antarctic ice sheets where the summer temperature manages to get to -20 degrees c or the Greenland ice sheet which sits at high altitude 2000m+ above permanent ice on the edges of Greenland? Lines projected on a graph just don't cut it for me. Even when the great and good of science have said it's right.

What are you convinced of? There are several sections to this meam. 1 Does the activity of humans add substantial amounts of CO2 to the air? I think it does, at least in comparison to the very low levels of CO2. 2 Does this cause warming? Absorption and emission of various wavelengths of infra red light are beyond my knowledge. 3 To what degree does it cause warming? This is a big question. 4 What are the consequences likely to be if it does warm up? This is an even bigger question.

OK, I had not taken that in as well. What other feedbacks do you consider likely to add 8 degrees of warming?

Lack of buoyancy due to the low density of the air would men that you would still drop to the ground.

I would expect the frictional forces to be in the same direction but of course that's just the friction. The force of the chain pulling the cog on the back wheel will be in a forward direction. Are you sure that all the forces are frictional?

Some of the proxies are sediment based. Are any of them using the species which lived as a guide for temperature? If so then that would be quite a decent comparison tool.

Can I suggest that any claim that a logical fallacy has taken place needs to have it explained. Just disagreeing with somebody should not constitute such a thing.

That graph has lots of lines on it. The big bold black line is the only one which does not have higher points on it than the present climatic temperatures. The big black line is quoted as being from instrumentation, I don't get how it can be for such a long period. Are the other lines which show a variation wider than today's temperature wrong given that they are proxies from ice cores and the like which I find to be a more direct measure than some sort of data manipulated thing I don't understand and is certainly not explained within the explanation of the graph? Also it is very poor to put a high fidelity part of the graph where we have temperature records from thermometers next to the automatically flattened data from ice core proxies etc. This will automatically make today's fluctuations look far more dramatic.

Since when has that been the predicted effect? Was the change in the prediction before or after the prediction that we would never see any more snowfall in the UK went wrong? The way the greenhouse absorption and emission of infrared light works is surely to increase night time temperatures more than anything else so why would that prediction be more plausible than the old one of not ever having snow in the UK again?