Earth breaks 12th straight monthly heat record

Originally posted by joe beyser
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Your link asks the question of;

"...Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? ..."

in the context of distant past causes of global warming. But WE ALREADY KNOW most of those past causes of the initialization of warming periods was other causes other than CO2 and NOBODY IS CLAIMING that CO2 is necessarily always the cause and the only cause; -that is just straw man.

What many people clearly imply the link logically implies is the completely stupid false inference that, because most/all past warming periods (in that particular data) were not initiated by CO2 rise in the past but rather initiated from other natural causes, CO2 cannot cause global warming. The problem with that is, one doesn't logically imply the other in the slightest.

Using the same completely stupid 'logic', past temperature data shows the early morning sun shining on a forest warms the forest; so we cannot cause to temperature of the forest to rise by setting fire to it because that past temperature data proves fire isn't the cause of temperature rise? 😛 -exactly the same stupid logic and stupid for the same reason; it makes the false inference that examples of past causes of something not being cause c but being some other cause logically implies cause c cannot ever be the cause of that same something; -it doesn't logically imply that in the slightest.

Originally posted by joe beyser

sorry, I apologize;didn't mean to take it out on you in particular.
I just get fed up with regularly hearing the same nonsense rhetoric and bad reasoning.
My reasoning usually isn't perfect but nothing wildly by far compared with the bad reasoning I keep hearing from a loud minority.

Originally posted by humy
sorry, I apologize;didn't mean to take it out on you in particular.
I just get fed up with regularly hearing the same nonsense rhetoric and bad reasoning.
My reasoning usually isn't perfect but nothing wildly by far compared with the bad reasoning I keep hearing from a loud minority.

No problem humy, just a bunch of data. Forget about the political aspect of global warming for a second. Isn't it interesting that there is a natural cycle to it. Kinda like a heartbeat. I have been interested in the electric universe theory for sometime. The thunderbolts project has done a lot of work in this area. They have a project called Saphire where they have built a test facility to be able to scale down the effects of plasma and compare it to the sun. Have you heard of it? If so what do you think? The sun does seem to play an important role in earths climate regardless of the validity of their theory, but I just bet there is a lot more to learn than we think.

Originally posted by joe beyser
No problem humy, just a bunch of data. Forget about the political aspect of global warming for a second. Isn't it interesting that there is a natural cycle to it. Kinda like a heartbeat. I have been interested in the electric universe theory for sometime. The thunderbolts project has done a lot of work in this area. They have a project called Saphire wher ...[text shortened]... less of the validity of their theory, but I just bet there is a lot more to learn than we think.

I should mention that the claim by a tiny minority of people that the sun's activity is the cause of the recent warming has been scientifically disproved by the data showing the recent cooling of the stratosphere relative to the troposphere which can only be explained by CO2 induced warming and no other known causes including solar activity.
Basic physics, which I know a lot about since I have studied it at university, clearly logically implies that if you have more of a gas in the atmosphere that absorbs infrared radiating from the planet's surface, that means less of those infrared wavelengths make it through to reach the atmosphere higher up to directly heat it higher up thus you get cooling of the upper atmosphere relative to the lower atmosphere where the vast bulk of the heating takes place. In contrast, more solar activity wouldn't cause any such effect (and hopefully you would kind of intuitively see why this may be true even if you don't understand any of the physics) so the theory that solar activity is the cause or the main cause is completely contradicted by the data; in other words, the theory that solar activity causes that warming has been disproved and it has been scientifically proved that the increase in CO2, released by man, is the primary cause of the more resent warming.

Originally posted by humy
I should mention that the claim by a tiny minority of people that the sun's activity is the cause of the recent warming has been scientifically disproved by the data showing the recent cooling of the stratosphere relative to the troposphere which can only be explained by CO2 induced warming and no other known causes including solar activity.
Basic physics, whi ...[text shortened]... oved that the increase in CO2, released by man, is the primary cause of the more resent warming.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Science is not a democracy humy. For the purpose of this discussion we will have to get back to the dull dry data I provided on the link that showed a natural rhythm in the warming and cooling cycles. One can not go about beating their chest and proclaiming to be gods gift to science and the data is wrong. You have to do better than that, especially when you have the likes of Al Gore wanting your money . I don't believe anyone has said CO2 doesn't absorb heat radiation but the significance is what is in question. What explains the warming 800 years before the CO2 increases? We can expect a cooling coming before too long if the cycles continue. If there is warming due to CO2 increases then why did the temperatures drop instead of increase even more? The above link shows what is going on on Mars and will help eliminate the human factor. Perhaps the man made CO2 may help moderate the next ice age but probably not significantly.

Originally posted by joe beyser
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Science is not a democracy humy. For the purpose of this discussion we will have to get back to the dull dry data I provided on the link that showed a natural rhythm in the warming and cooling cycles. One can not go about beating their chest and proclaiming to be gods gift to scie ...[text shortened]... tor. Perhaps the man made CO2 may help moderate the next ice age but probably not significantly.

sorry But your link couldn't be more idiotic

it says

"... In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. "

...OK, so what? Well, it then continuous with;

"...Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
..."

Errr NO it is NOT evidence of that at all!
False inference. How does one imply the other? The link doesn't explain presumably because the commentator doesn't know himself.
The hypothesis that the sun must be causing the resent warming of the Earth's climate has been CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN FALSE from the data which I explained in previous posts. As I explained before, the cooling of the stratosphere relative to the troposphere proves solar activity cannot be the primary cause and it proves CO2 is the primary cause and I already explained the physics of that in detail to explain WHY that is.

Then it says:

"...Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. ..."

Same old straw man from man made global warming deniers [ MMGWDs ]: Nobody CLAIMS that past fluctuations in climate is driven by CO2 nor does the greenhouse theory imply that most/all past fluctuations must have be caused by CO2 fluctuations in the slightest therefore all that past natural climate cycles is completely IRRELEVANT.

then it says:

"..."Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. ..."

false assertion: What evidence does he present to support this assertion? answer; none.

Science is not a democracy humy.

correct; which is not why I said that. I said that because some MMGWDs , metalbrain being an example, claim that most climate scientists disagree with me and say there is no conclusive evidence of man made global warming. This is simply not true.

For the purpose of this discussion we will have to get back to the dull dry data I provided on the link that showed a natural rhythm in the warming and cooling cycles

For what 'purpose'? It is IRRELEVANT. Nobody CLAIMS that CO2 induced warming means there cannot be other causes of warming and showing examples, even a billion examples, of warming that occurred in the past that wasn't caused by CO2 in the past does NOT logically imply in the slightest that CO2 cannot cause warming therefore that is totally IRRELEVANT.

I don't believe anyone has said CO2 doesn't absorb heat radiation ...

There you are wrong; this is one of the most common claims I have heard again and again from MMGWDs despite the fact very basic physics says it MUST absorb some infrared. They say that "it is just an assumption" that CO2 absorbs infrared despite the fact its absorption spectra has been studied in exhaustive fine detail both in and out of the lab and basic physics says it should absorb infrared.

What explains the warming 800 years before the CO2 increases?

IRRELEVANT. It not being CO2 for particular past cases doesn't logically imply in the slightest that CO2 cannot ever cause warming.

If there is warming due to CO2 increases then why did the temperatures drop instead of increase even more?

'drop' when?

The above link shows what is going on on Mars and will help eliminate the human factor.

no it doesn't. The link is totally idiotic.

Perhaps the CO2 may help moderate the next ice age but probably not significantly.

Irrelevant. The next ice age isn't due for many thousands of years and the effect of global warming from CO2 increase within the next ~200 years could be significant and harmful if we do nothing about it.

you appear to be making exactly the same logical error I see so often made by other MMGWDs. I explained in the other post why this logic is flawed. Did you read that? I said it is flawed because, using the same 'logic', past temperature data shows the early morning sun shining on a forest warms the forest; so we cannot cause to temperature of the forest to rise by setting fire to it because that past temperature data proves fire isn't the cause of temperature rise? -exactly the same logic and completely in error for exactly the same reason; it makes the false inference that examples of past causes of something not being cause c but being some other cause logically implies cause c cannot ever be the cause of that same something; -it doesn't logically imply that in the slightest.
If the same 'logic' is completely valid, then fire cannot ever make things hot.
---
Do you understand and agree with this above argument?

Originally posted by humy
sorry But your link couldn't be more idiotic

it says

"... In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. "

...OK, so what? Well, it then continuous with;

"...Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Pe ...[text shortened]... en fire cannot ever make things hot.
---
Do you understand and agree with this above argument?

No I don't agree with you on that. Here is what you do.Spend some time outdoors and see if it gets cooler when the sun goes down. If it does, then isn't it reasonable to expect if the suns energy hitting the planet diminishes, there will be a drop in temperature?

Originally posted by joe beyser
No I don't agree with you on that. Here is what you do.Spend some time outdoors and see if it gets cooler when the sun goes down. If it does, then isn't it reasonable to expect if the suns energy hitting the planet diminishes, there will be a drop in temperature?

How is this in the slightest relevant to my argument?
My argument was NOT that warming couldn't have causes other than CO2 but rather there being in the past causes of warming other than CO2 doesn't in the slightest logically imply CO2 cannot ever be the primary cause warming; do you agree or disagree with that argument?
If you disagree; give a counter argument or explain at what point in my deduction I go wrong and how so.
If you agree, look back at your posts and note how you where very clearly repeatedly erroneously implying past causes of warming other than CO2 implies CO2 cannot ever be a primary cause warming.

I should also point out the energy from the sun hasn't increased enough recently (if it has increased at all! ) to came anywhere near enough to account for the amount of recent global warming; the solar constant (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant ) is still 1.361 kilowatts per square meter on average across the year with extremely little variation between years. If you could do the basic physics calculations, you would see the variation between the years is far far too tiny by several orders of magnitude to have the kind of warming we have seen. I remind you I did physics as university: have you done physics as university? I could show you the equations and do the maths and prove it to you but that would be over your head.

As I have pointed out before again and again, the cooling of the observed stratosphere relative to the troposphere rules out solar activity being the primary cause of that warming and proves CO2 is the primary cause and I HAVE explained to you the basic physics of why that is, which isn't difficult for the layperson to understand; did you not understand what I said?

Originally posted by humy
How is this in the slightest relevant to my argument?
My argument was NOT that warming couldn't have causes other than CO2 but rather there being in the past causes of warming other than CO2 doesn't in the slightest logically imply CO2 cannot ever be the primary cause warming; do you agree or disagree with that argument?
If you disagree; give a counter argume ...[text shortened]... t is, which isn't difficult for the layperson to understand; did you not understand what I said?

By the way the upper atmosphere does cool due to sunspot activity. I leave that for you to look up. I guess if you totally ignore all the data and the fact that there have been times that have seen similar temperatures as today with a much higher CO2 level in the atmosphere, then you are right. Never mind that NASA scientists would disagree with you http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html They probably didn't have as good of a professor as you had. The main thing is that you are towing the ropes for the white shoe boys ready to collect the taxes. I am sure glad you got me straightend out on this. Whats next on the agenda? Planet earth is ready to turn into an infrared laser because all of the CO2 in the atmosphere is in the excited state? I have given you plenty of data as well as views from the scientific community. You can reject them if you like but you have not given an argument that passes muster in any legitamate scientific circle whatsoever. Excuse me if I doubt your credentials.

Originally posted by joe beyser
By the way the upper atmosphere does cool due to sunspot activity. .

how does sun spot activity cooling the stratosphere explain the warming of the troposphere and therefore explain the recent global warming? What you imply doesn't make any sense.

I have explained to you the basic physics which I obviously understand much better than you and the proof I shown you that sun activity is not the cause still stands unchallenged by you.
The link below explains the basic physics of it and why I say the recent warming cannot be explained by solar activity:

https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp
"...
Global temperatures during January - August 2011 were the third coldest on record in the lower stratosphere, according to the National Climatic Data Center, and have been generally declining in recent decades (Figure 1).
...
(this link here then explains how CFC gasses cause stratosphere to cool)
...
Greenhouse gases also cause stratospheric cooling;
However, this recovery of the ozone layer is being delayed. A significant portion of the observed stratospheric cooling is also due to human-emitted greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Climate models predict that if greenhouse gases are to blame for heating at the surface, compensating cooling must occur in the upper atmosphere. We need only look as far as our sister planet, Venus, to see the truth of this theory. Venus's atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, which has triggered a run-away greenhouse effect of truly hellish proportions. The average surface temperature on Venus is a very toasty 894 °F! However, Venus's upper atmosphere is a much colder than Earth's upper atmosphere. The explanation of this greenhouse gas-caused surface heating and upper air cooling is not simple, but good discussions can be found at Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and realclimate.org for those unafraid of radiative transfer theory. One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun. If the surface atmosphere warms, there must be compensating cooling elsewhere in the atmosphere in order to keep the amount of heat given off by the planet the same. As emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, their cooling effect on the stratosphere will increase. This will make recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer much slower.
Greenhouse gases cause cooling higher up, too

Greenhouse gases have also led to the cooling of the atmosphere at levels higher than the stratosphere. Over the past 30 years, the Earth's surface temperature has increased 0.2-0.4 °C, while the temperature in the mesosphere, about 50-80 km above ground, has cooled 5-10 °C (Beig et al., 2006). There is no appreciable cooling due to ozone destruction at these altitudes, so nearly all of this dramatic cooling is due to the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even greater cooling of 17 °C per decade has been observed high in the ionosphere, at 350 km altitude. This has affected the orbits of orbiting satellites, due to decreased drag, since the upper atmosphere has shrunk and moved closer to the surface (Lastovicka et al., 2006). The density of the air has declined 2-3% per decade the past 30 years at 350 km altitude. So, in a sense, the sky IS falling!

What about global warming being caused by the sun?

Some scientists have theorized that increases in solar output are responsible for a significant portion of the observed global warming. For instance, Scafetta & West (2006) estimated that 25-35% of the global warming in the 1980-2000 period was attributable to solar variability. Other scientists disagree, finding no evidence of global warming due to solar activity changes since the 1940s.
Since any increase in solar radiation would heat both the lower and upper atmosphere, the observed drop in upper atmospheric temperatures in the past 30 years argues against a large portion of the observed greenhouse effect being caused by solar variability. The observed cooling of the upper atmosphere in recent decades is strong evidence that the warming at Earth's surface is due to human-emitted greenhouse gases. It should also give us additional confidence in the climate models, since they predicted that this upper atmospheric cooling would occur.
..."

I have highlighted the most important point for you but you really need to read it through thoroughly and properly before you can understand and comment on it.

Originally posted by humy
how does sun spot activity cooling the stratosphere explain the warming of the troposphere and therefore explain the recent global warming? What you imply doesn't make any sense.

I have explained to you the basic physics which I obviously understand much better than you and the proof I shown you that sun activity is not the cause still stands unchallenged ...[text shortened]... lly need to read it through thoroughly and properly before you can understand and comment on it.

Like I said you had a better professor than the NASA scientists. My hats off to ya. LOL

Originally posted by joe beyser
Like I said you had a better professor than the NASA scientists. My hats off to ya. LOL

This is not a joke.
Most NASA scientists would not dispute what I am saying here but AGREE.
Have you read my link?
Seriously, I think you should.
You will learn something significant about the REAL physics of climate if you do and hopefully realize you and many other laypeople have been deceived by an extremely tiny minority of crank scientists and a larger minority of crank laypeople into believing a huge amount of misinformation and potentially very harmful nonsense myths about climate rather than the REAL science of climate that PROVES man made global warming beyond any reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by humy
This is not a joke.
Most NASA scientists would not dispute what I am saying here but AGREE.
Have you read my link?
Seriously, I think you should.
You will learn something significant about the REAL physics of climate if you do and hopefully realize you and many other laypeople have been deceived by an extremely tiny minority of crank scientists and a large ...[text shortened]... han the REAL science of climate that PROVES man made global warming beyond any reasonable doubt.

Easy, when solar energy diminishes it does so at the higher spectrum which is absorbed by the upper atmoshere. Solar output change is not the same across the spectrum in other words.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Easy, when solar energy diminishes it does so at the higher spectrum which is absorbed by the upper atmoshere. Solar output change is not the same across the spectrum in other words.

What has this got to do with anything I just said or what was in my link? How does it relate?
Have you read all of my link and understood it all?
Have you read or looked at ANY of it!?

https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

It should be easy to understand and absolutely no maths required to understand it. Please just read it so you learn the very easy to understand physics of why solar activity cannot possibly be the main cause of the recent warming; only CO2 can.

Originally posted by humy
No I am not; most agree and I get my info from that most;
the evidence presented in my last post that the warming has the C02 signature on it still stands and most climate scientists would agree.

No, most climate scientists do not believe man is the "primary cause". You have been mislead by liars and you simply will not accept it. You have not presented any proof otherwise, you just say it because you are foolishly clinging to your blind faith.