Earth breaks 12th straight monthly heat record

going slightly off-topic:

http://phys.org/news/2016-07-ocean-primary-antarctic-peninsula-glacier.html

False consensus.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#305c065c26d6

2016 climate trends continue to break records;

http://phys.org/news/2016-07-climate-trends.html

Originally posted by humy
2016 climate trends continue to break records;

http://phys.org/news/2016-07-climate-trends.html

Irrelevant. We have been in a global warming trend that started over 300 years ago from natural causes. Breaking records only proves we are still in that trend that is primarily from natural causes. You need to do better than that.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
...We have been in a global warming trend that started over 300 years ago from natural causes....

Irrelevant: straw man; ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) Nobody CLAIMS there is NO natural causes. And there being natural causes doesn't logically imply no man made causes as there is no logical contradiction of having both at the same time.
Thus we can, without the slightest contradiction, have BOTH a global warming trend that started over 300 years ago from natural causes AND man made causes amplifying and/or causing that warming trend in the present.

Originally posted by humy
Irrelevant: straw man; ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) Nobody CLAIMS there is NO natural causes. And there being natural causes doesn't logically imply no man made causes as there is no logical contradiction of having both at the same time.
Thus we can, without the slightest contradiction, have BOTH a global warming trend that started over 300 year ...[text shortened]... natural causes AND man made causes amplifying and/or causing that warming trend in the present.

My point is that breaking heat records is not evidence of man made global warming as you have implied. Primary cause is important to prove and global warming alarmists ignore the importance of this. More likely, they have done a poll of climate scientists only to find out most believe man is NOT the primary cause so they kept it a secret. After all, if it would help their case we would have heard about it a long time ago. Instead, alarmists lie and mislead since the facts are not on their side.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#10fcac5d26d6

Originally posted by Metal Brain
My point is that breaking heat records is not evidence of man made global warming

I never implied merely "breaking heat records" was. However, the most recent heat records cannot be explained by any known natural causes and the most recent relative cooling of the stratosphere relative to the troposphere proves man made warming as that rules out all other known natural causes including solar activity which cannot possibly explain such a temperature difference to the magnitude observed and only CO2 can explain it hence this is proof and proof that man is the primary cause of the most recent warming.
I have already explained the physics of why in layperson terms but you refuse to be educated into basic physics which you have complete ignorance of and instead continue to forever make arrogant ignorant assertions that convinces nobody here esp the scientists here that know vastly more about it than you ever will.

Originally posted by humy
I never implied merely "breaking heat records" was. However, the most recent heat records cannot be explained by any known natural causes and the most recent relative cooling of the stratosphere relative to the troposphere proves man made warming as that rules out all other known natural causes including solar activity which cannot possibly explain such a tempe ...[text shortened]... plain it hence this is proof and proof that man is the primary cause of the most recent warming.

More pure bull crap. That is not proof of anything at all. The Pliocene was much warmer than today and CO2 levels were comparable. That is proof that CO2 is not the bogeyman you foolishly claim it is. If it was all the glaciers would be gone like during the Pliocene.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
... The Pliocene was much warmer than today and CO2 levels were comparable. ..

yet again the same moronic straw man and irrelevancy; Nobody CLAIMS that CO2 is the only natural cause of past warmings. How does a cause other than CO2 not being the primary cause of a particular past warming (if that was what it was ) logically imply CO2 cannot ever be the primary cause of any other warming? Why cannot there exist MULTIPLE possible causes of something rather than always just one? With your same stupid logic; you feel the sun warming your face and conclude that fire cannot burn you because it cannot warm you because in the past it was the sun that warmed you 😛 (as if there cannot be more than one possible cause of something causing warming ) . Please don't embarrass yourself with such stupid rhetoric -you are fooling nobody here.

That is not proof of anything at all.

as, unlike us physics experts, you have complete ignorance of even the basic physics, (and appaerently by choice as you refuse to be educated by us) , how can you possibly know? Obviously, you cannot. I have explained the proof which is the physics of it which actually just happens to be very easy for virtually any layperson to understand who is willing to understand; whether you are too stupid to understand it or deliberately refuse to understand it, that's your problem, not ours.

Originally posted by humy
yet again the same moronic straw man and irrelevancy; Nobody CLAIMS that CO2 is the only natural cause of past warmings. How does a cause other than CO2 not being the primary cause of a particular past warming (if that was what it was ) logically imply CO2 cannot ever be the primary cause of any other warming? Why cannot there exist MULTIPLE possible causes of ...[text shortened]... stupid to understand it or deliberately refuse to understand it, that's your problem, not ours.

You claimed Co2 was the cause of the recent global warming without any evidence at all, just another stupid empty claim as usual.

"Nobody CLAIMS that CO2 is the only natural cause of past warmings."

Exactly! Nobody knows co2 is the primary cause of warming today either, yet you idiotically claim it does without anything but guesswork. You cannot show any evidence of the primary cause of the Pliocene warming yet you expect people here to believe you know the primary cause now and you do not. You simply repeat empty claims from very biased sources that prove absolutely nothing, and you claim physics proves it like a pathetic moron.
Deepthought will not take your side (to name one on here) with a degree in physics. Stop claiming physicists here agree with you when they do not. You are resorting to pathetic lies again. You do not know what you are talking about at all and many people on here know it. One word of truth is worth more than a thousand lies, something you have not learned yet. Stop your continued shameless bluffing. It is only making you look like an idiot!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You claimed Co2 was the cause of the recent global warming without any evidence at all, just another stupid empty claim as usual.

"Nobody CLAIMS that CO2 is the only natural cause of past warmings."

Exactly! Nobody knows co2 is the primary cause of warming today either, yet you idiotically claim it does without anything but guesswork. You cannot s ...[text shortened]... t learned yet. Stop your continued shameless bluffing. It is only making you look like an idiot!

Show me the vast minority who DON'T agree, climatologists not geneticists or astronomers or computer scientists.

You want to pick out the few who have dissenting opinions and use them as absolute authority meanwhile there is less and less Arctic ice and higher and higher temps around the planet accompanied by more and stronger hurricanes, tornatoes and tropical storms.

Just what would it take to get you to admit we are in deep doo doo climate wise?

Whatever the cause, man made or not, we need to start cutting CO2 NOW not ten or twenty years from now.

It is pretty clear, lower CO2, lower the world wide temperature.

One big problem is the higher the temp the more methane emitted from tundra in the Arctic and that is a greenhouse gas about ten times more effective than CO2.

We get much of that and we pass the tipping point and we kiss Florida goodbye.

Originally posted by Metal Brain

Deepthought will not take your side (to name one on here) with a degree in physics.

"take my side" on what? That there is man made global warming?
He certainly wouldn't deny CO2 can cause global warming (this just comes from physics which he and I both learned at university and which you haven't learned anywhere) and I honestly cannot recall a single occasion where he agreed with you on anything let alone this. In fact, he usually pointed out some stupid flaw in your assertions. He certainly does NOT take your 'side' on this.
Yet again, you are lying, as usual. You must be getting pretty desperate to lie about a physicist here supporting your ignorant claim; NO physicist here that I know of supports your claim. The vast majority of climatologists agree that there is man made global warming with CO2 being the primary cause. If this wasn't true, the vast majority would be saying so and yet they haven't.

Originally posted by humy
"take my side" on what? That there is man made global warming?
He certainly wouldn't deny CO2 can cause global warming (this just comes from physics which he and I both learned at university and which you haven't learned anywhere) and I honestly cannot recall a single occasion where he agreed with you on anything let alone this. In fact, he usually pointed out ...[text shortened]... e primary cause. If this wasn't true, the vast majority would be saying so and yet they haven't.

"The vast majority of climatologists agree that there is man made global warming with CO2 being the primary cause."

That is a lie and you know it. There is no poll to suggest this as I have pointed out many times. CO2 causes warming, but as I pointed out many times before the Pliocene epoch shows that warming from CO2 is marginal at best. Deepthought took no side because he chose to remain neutral, but he certainly never took your side and did not point out any flaws in my assertions at all.

You are a pathetic liar!

Originally posted by sonhouse
Show me the vast minority who DON'T agree, climatologists not geneticists or astronomers or computer scientists.

You want to pick out the few who have dissenting opinions and use them as absolute authority meanwhile there is less and less Arctic ice and higher and higher temps around the planet accompanied by more and stronger hurricanes, tornatoes and ...[text shortened]... tive than CO2.

We get much of that and we pass the tipping point and we kiss Florida goodbye.

"Show me the vast minority who DON'T agree, climatologists not geneticists or astronomers or computer scientists."

No poll exists to show climatologists believe man is the "primary cause". I cannot show you a poll that does not exist. Prove your positive instead of expecting me to prove a negative. You are being very unreasonable as usual.

Originally posted by Metal Brain


That is a lie and you know it. There is no poll to suggest this as I have pointed out many times. CO2 causes warming, ...

here is not one pole but many; and before you complain about it being from skepticalscience, I DON'T CARE A LESS about you moronic prejudice against them; all the more reason to make sure it comes from them:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

"...Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists.
...
That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.
...
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
...


The 97% consensus on global warming
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Climate Myth...

There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)

Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

consensus studies

Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016). Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page
consensus vs expertise

Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page

Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.

Lead author John Cook explaining the team’s 2016 consensus paper.
Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

consensus pie chart

Lead author John Cook created a short video abstract summarizing the study:

Oreskes 2004 and Peiser

A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:
...
Doran 2009

Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
...
Anderegg 2010

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
...
Vision Prize

The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3.
...
As this figure shows, the majority (~85😵 of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.

Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased. Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence - the consensus was significantly better than the participants anticipated (Figure 4).
...
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
...(the list goes on and on)...