UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for August, 2026: +0.68 deg. C

Yes, establishing a well accepted scientific theory requires evidence. Such as has been achieved for relativity, the theory that smoking can cause cancer, that earth orbits the sun , and that man’s burning of fossil fuels is causing the fastest warming of the planet in millennia. And debunking that theory requires evidence that contradicts the theory…. which no Denier (or anyone else for that matter) has ever done.

You are a flaming ignoramus on the role of CO2. NO scientific sources claim CO2 is the only factor affecting the planet’s temperature: there are plenty of other sources cited and evaluated by Science: eg, emissions of methane, H2O, N2O, HFCs, sf6, clouds, the sun, earth’s albedo, etc. But the 40 gigatonnes of annual CO2 emissions caused by human action account for about 80% of the climate forcing currently seen by planet earth, and so it is currently the dominant control knob — due to mankind’s intervention in the climate system.
.

What I find amazing is that you don’t know something so basic, well known and documented in science. Here is a graph showing the correlation. If you want more, read any of the peer reviewed sources I’ve given you — or just pickup a University textbook on atmospheric physics .

Not so fast. Do you acknowledge that the graph shows evidence in support of my “amazing claim”?

1)Correlation with a time lag is correlation and is clear from the data.
2) Shakun analyzed the ice core data and found that the data confirmed the behavior predicted by physics: that warmingprecedes atm CO2 rise (due to outgassing from the warming oceans) and also that a second larger warming follows the rise in atm co2 (due to the increase in the greenhouse effect).

The Laws of physics provide the answer. I described how the warming induces CO2 rise, and then the CO2 rise induces a second, larger warming. Read this https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

or the paper by Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., He, F., Marcott, S. A., Mix, A. C., Liu, Z., … & Bard, E. (2012). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), 49-54.

Whereas your argument seems to be, “Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them”.

“Then why isn’t climate science coming up with ways to turn the effect of these other sources UP so as to offset CO2?” Those “other sources” are natural — eg, the sun. Do you know how to turn off the sun?
Water vapor doesnt contribute to the rising temperature trend of the planet (except as a positive feedback) because its not increasing since it condenses out.

I said this: “Water vapor doesnt contribute to the rising temperature trend of the planet (EXCEPT AS A POSITIVE FEEDBACK) because its not increasing since it condenses out.”

Which means that because the atmosphere’s ability to hold water changes only with temperature, its the warming of the atmosphere caused by rising CO2 concentration that allows a slow increase in water vapor and a postive feedback to the warming trend

This explanation of how water vapor acts as positive feedback should keep you busy for a while: https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/

It Requires water vapor to EXIST in the troposphere for sustained periods. In fact, it exists there permanently.
But if you truly believe the absurd nonsense you are wont to post, submit them to a peer reviewed journal, if you have the cojones.

. You’re even more dimwitted than I thought, Gorman. You’re confusing two different phenomenon– the sustained elevation of earths temperature above the temperature it would be in the absence of any greenhouse gases (about 60F) — caused by the PRESENCE of greenhouse gases, including water vapor– vs the TREND of rising temperature, caused by the trend of rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Note that water vapor concentration rises only in response to atmospheric warming and thus far slower than co2 concentration which rises in direct response to the 40 gigatonnes of CO2 emitted annually. That’s why water vapors effect is considered a positive feedback from the warming of the climate, not a cause of the warming.
And if you can’t understand how the lifetime of a specific H2O molecule in the atmosphere is irrelevant to this discussion, you’re beyond help

So far, all of the tonnes of evidence confirm the scientific theory that Man’s burning of fossil fuels is causing the fastest rate of planetary warming in millennia. No contradictory evidence has ever been found. And no Denier (or anyone else, for that matter) has produced any. So the theory stands, just as relativity, the theory that smoking causes cancer, or that earth orbits the sun.

Sorry, but you are wrong. My post answered Mark BLR’s specific argument about the theory of man -caused climate change.

Regarding your hangup on its effects, read the IPCC 6th Assessment and subsequent peer reviewed papers. I did my best to summarize the IPCC’s finding’s in a prior post, which I now repeat below. If you disagree with IPCC’s findings, please cite peer reviewed sources that contradict these findings.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report highlights widespread adverse impacts, economic vulnerabilities, and irreversible damages to human and natural systems caused by human-induced climate change.
Human and Health Impacts

Extreme Weather and Mortality: Between 2010 and 2020, human mortality from floods, droughts and storms was 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions, compared to regions with very low vulnerability.Food and Water Insecurity: Rising temperatures and extreme events have exposed millions of people to acute food shortages and reduced water availability, impacting livelihoods globally. Disproportionate Inequality: Climate change is exacerbating existing inequalities, severely affecting marginalized communities, low-income households, and Indigenous Peoples who contributed the least to global emissions. Ecosystem and Environmental Damage

Irreversible Ecosystem Loss: Climate change has caused substantial damage and near-permanent loss across terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, and open ocean marine ecosystems. Biodiversity and Species Decline: Ocean acidification is accelerating while local species extinctions and mass mortality events on land and in oceans become more frequent due to severe heat extremes.Melting Ice and Rising Seas: Global temperatures, melting glaciers, and sea levels continue to rise rapidly, threatening coastal regions. “

Ive already responded: ‘Read the IPCC Assessments so you learn what Scientific research has to say about the topic.’

It’s a waste of time if you refuse to read or assess what the scientific research has found. (Or maybe just incapable of understanding it if you did read it.)

Since “you know” there is no consideration of positives, then your questions were non-serious, as they are for most Deniers.

I did some checking, and sure enough, I found proof you don’t read the IPCC Assessments. Here is a summary:
The IPCC evaluates potential positive effects of rising temperatures, though it finds they are vastly outweighed by negative impacts. 
Consideration of Potential Benefits

• Regional and sectoral gains: The IPCC assesses localized or short-term advantages, such as longer growing seasons in high northern latitudes, reduced cold-weather mortality in certain regions, and lower energy demands for winter heating.

• Comprehensive risk framework: Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explicitly review how patterns of risks and potential benefits shift across sectors, noting that any positive changes tend to occur “to a lesser extent”. 

The Scientific Conclusion

• Net negative impact: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that the adverse consequences—such as extreme heat, water stress, crop yield reductions, and ecosystem loss—far outweigh any localized or isolated benefits. 

As noted by analysis of the findings, climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks, making it clear that potential benefits do not dominate [“to a lesser extent, climate change is projected to have some potential benefits — but it makes it clear they don’t dominate.” — [Carbon Brief].].

If you want an answer to your narrow question, “do your own research”. It will be good for you.

Good grief. When the IPCC says NET negative, do you not understand the word NET? And then you have the ignorant gall to whine that the IPCC doesn’t consider positives, and yet refuse to look into the IPCC reports in detail and ask someone else to find the details for you.
You haven’t changed one bit.

OMG. This is from YOUR earlier post:
Q: How does the Iatest IPCC summary report treat the greening of the earth?

The AR6 Synthesis Report states that widespread and rapid changes in the biosphere have occurred due to human‑caused climate change. It does not highlight greening as a major positive effect; instead, it groups biosphere changes under adverse impacts.

Ie, greening DOES NOT HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT

I can assure you that the topic you mention has been studied to a fare thee well by scientists for decades. But I’m not surprised at all that you lack the interest to search it out and read it. You live in a silo, and know only what your mind conjures up.

Exactly! And are you accepting this finding of science, or rejecting it because you can’t accept anything from outside your silo?

I think the IPCC doesn’t highlight greening as as a major positive because the bulk of scientific research says it isn’t.