Do you accept the evidence of No Global Warming?

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Daniel91 on July 19, 2015, 03:39:51 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on July 17, 2015, 05:41:37 PM

Yes or no?

We're now going on 21 years.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/

If NO, how long does it have to not warm before you accept the lack of Global Warming?

If YES, what would have to happen to make you reverse your view?

YES, because I believe scientific research and evidence on climate change.
If scientists announce that they were wrong and misinterpreted their data, then I'll change my mind.
But when I see how hot is these days at my home and country, somehow I do not think it will happen

Maybe I was unclear but the YES vote means "no global warming," or "global warming if it exists/existed, has stopped for the last 21 years."

I have made the questions clearer and restarted this topic using a POLL. And thus lock this thread. Please use the new one - Thanks.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: removebeforeflight on July 18, 2015, 05:02:20 PM

Come and visit some of Canada's glaciers. They have changed noticeably (melted) in my lifetime. No doubt in my mind that a shift is happening. Agree that petty politics has ruined the whole debate.

Glaciers all over the world are retreating. Some of them (especially those in Mount Kenya and Mount Kilimanjaro) have disappeared altogether. Some of the smaller Antarctic ice sheets are disappearing. Giant sinkholes are forming all over Siberia, as a result of the melting of permafrost. And these evidences are not sufficient for some idiots to believe in global warming.

Ingatqhvq

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

I don't think the world will be warmer. There is no really evidence to prove this.

Daniel91

legendary

Activity: 3374

Merit: 1824

Quote from: Spendulus on July 17, 2015, 05:41:37 PM

Yes or no?

We're now going on 21 years.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/

If NO, how long does it have to not warm before you accept the lack of Global Warming?

If YES, what would have to happen to make you reverse your view?

YES, because I believe scientific research and evidence on climate change.
If scientists announce that they were wrong and misinterpreted their data, then I'll change my mind.
But when I see how hot is these days at my home and country, somehow I do not think it will happen

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

The sun's influence to the earth is many many magnitudes larger than humanity. Human have no way to affect the earth temperature's long term trend, only adopt to it

We are entering the new ice age soon, it is extremely cold this year

removebeforeflight

sr. member

Activity: 696

Merit: 258

Come and visit some of Canada's glaciers. They have changed noticeably (melted) in my lifetime. No doubt in my mind that a shift is happening. Agree that petty politics has ruined the whole debate.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: bryant.coleman on July 18, 2015, 11:44:50 AM

Quote from: BADecker on July 17, 2015, 06:38:31 PM

Siberia and Northern Canada would become warm enough for people to live in, so that the earth could hold a much larger population.

Most of the Siberia and the Canadian Arctic will become uninhabitable if global warming persists. When the permafrost melts, the solid soil will be converted to a semi-solid state, leading to the formation of swamps and marshes. It will be almost impossible to undertake agriculture or human settlement in these areas.

No relation to the question of the OP.

Side note, "swamps and marshes" tend to be prolific generators of life, although perhaps rather unpleasant to humans....Hello, Arctic crocodiles....

lol...

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: BADecker on July 17, 2015, 06:38:31 PM

Siberia and Northern Canada would become warm enough for people to live in, so that the earth could hold a much larger population.

Most of the Siberia and the Canadian Arctic will become uninhabitable if global warming persists. When the permafrost melts, the solid soil will be converted to a semi-solid state, leading to the formation of swamps and marshes. It will be almost impossible to undertake agriculture or human settlement in these areas.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Beliathon on July 18, 2015, 11:31:18 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on July 17, 2015, 05:41:37 PM

Yes or no?

To the entire scientific community, climate change denialists are just about as ridiculous as flat-earthers. You're an embarrassment to the species.

That's not related to the question of the OP. Certainly does affirm Lethn's comments.

Comprises misdirection, ad hominem argument, reframing of the question.

As far as I can tell.

Beliathon

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU

Quote from: Spendulus on July 17, 2015, 05:41:37 PM

Yes or no?

To the entire scientific community, climate change denialists are just about as ridiculous as flat-earthers. You're an embarrassment to the species.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Lethn on July 18, 2015, 08:28:12 AM

Oh don't get me wrong, I think global warming exists and all, but like you say, the problem is that the stats and data have been fucked with so much in the name of politics and various ideologies that we aren't getting to the truth, that's my point.

Most scientists I have had the pleasure of meeting on associated subjects share your viewpoint.

But they seem to detach when discussing science.

Of course, one politically driven misnomer is "climate science." There is no commonality between the sciences of meteorology, icecaps, and solar physics. There is no "expert of all the disciplines."

Regardless, I think the recent 21 year hiatus is quite interesting. One might say, it is a minor factoid in a huge dataset. Or one might say, the satellite data is the most reliable, thus it must be given priority. Somewhere in judgements of that sort bias and political viewpoints begin to creep in.

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

Oh don't get me wrong, I think global warming exists and all, but like you say, the problem is that the stats and data have been fucked with so much in the name of politics and various ideologies that we aren't getting to the truth, that's my point.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Lethn on July 18, 2015, 07:05:40 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on July 17, 2015, 07:06:03 PM

Quote from: Lethn on July 17, 2015, 06:57:55 PM

This is the conclusion I have come to when it comes to climate change now, the science has been completely poisoned because of the amount of propaganda from both sides instead of simply stating what we do know and what we don't know. In other words all these fuckers including you lot who have turned this into a political problem are responsible for fucking over the planet one way or another if we don't find out for certain what's going on with our planet, congratulations.

Just a note, I am purposely phrasing the question AGW (anthropomorphic global warming). NOT buying into and asking about "climate change," which is a sort of blurred ambiguous catch all phrase as far as I can tell, and for which when the phrase is used, the typical use is affirmative and inclusive of the AGW concept, if not synonymous.

Whichever you decide to call it, global warming, climate change, either way, it's been ruined by shitty politics.

I am of the opinion that the question posed is not about politics. If I asked a question about your judgement on a theory (yes ruined by politics) based on a series of temperature measurements, an answer about politics is a non answer, redirect, misdirect, reframing of the question, whatever you want to call it.

Many, many issues exist in reality, whether or not they are clouded by a miasma of shitty politics.

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Spendulus on July 17, 2015, 07:06:03 PM

Quote from: Lethn on July 17, 2015, 06:57:55 PM

This is the conclusion I have come to when it comes to climate change now, the science has been completely poisoned because of the amount of propaganda from both sides instead of simply stating what we do know and what we don't know. In other words all these fuckers including you lot who have turned this into a political problem are responsible for fucking over the planet one way or another if we don't find out for certain what's going on with our planet, congratulations.

Just a note, I am purposely phrasing the question AGW (anthropomorphic global warming). NOT buying into and asking about "climate change," which is a sort of blurred ambiguous catch all phrase as far as I can tell, and for which when the phrase is used, the typical use is affirmative and inclusive of the AGW concept, if not synonymous.

Whichever you decide to call it, global warming, climate change, either way, it's been ruined by shitty politics.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: jaysabi on July 17, 2015, 07:35:17 PM

When you have 38 straight years of higher-than-average temperatures, and 9 of the 10 hottest years in the last 135 years coming in the last 14, I find global warming credible.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/16/377712745/its-official-2014-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-noaa-says

Interestingly, the claim that temperatures are not warming do not come from actual measurements of the temperature, but inference of the temperature based on other measured criteria, and the model used to analyze the temperature has been particularly prone to being inaccurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

It seems any evidence countering the scientific consensus stems from efforts to selectively frame how to measure temperature, or in this case, using a known unreliable method. Whereas we have ground based measurements showing rising temperatures, the method of measurement used in this study is one of inference. Satellites cannot measure temperatures, they have to infer them based measuring radiance wavelengths and inferring the temperature associated with the measurements. On top of that, the instruments are subject to inaccuracies due to decay. When these errors are corrected, the "evidence" vanishes.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Comparison_with_other_data_and_models

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere.

So the short answer is no, I don't accept this non-evidence.

So the arguments for "NO" are (1) proxy vs direct temperature readings and (2) 1998 corrections to the orbital instrument readings?

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

When you have 38 straight years of higher-than-average temperatures, and 9 of the 10 hottest years in the last 135 years coming in the last 14, I find global warming credible.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/16/377712745/its-official-2014-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-noaa-says

Interestingly, the claim that temperatures are not warming do not come from actual measurements of the temperature, but inference of the temperature based on other measured criteria, and the model used to analyze the temperature has been particularly prone to being inaccurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

It seems any evidence countering the scientific consensus stems from efforts to selectively frame how to measure temperature, or in this case, using a known unreliable method. Whereas we have ground based measurements showing rising temperatures, the method of measurement used in this study is one of inference. Satellites cannot measure temperatures, they have to infer them based measuring radiance wavelengths and inferring the temperature associated with the measurements. On top of that, the instruments are subject to inaccuracies due to decay. When these errors are corrected, the "evidence" vanishes.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Comparison_with_other_data_and_models

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere.

So the short answer is no, I don't accept this non-evidence.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Lethn on July 17, 2015, 06:57:55 PM

This is the conclusion I have come to when it comes to climate change now, the science has been completely poisoned because of the amount of propaganda from both sides instead of simply stating what we do know and what we don't know. In other words all these fuckers including you lot who have turned this into a political problem are responsible for fucking over the planet one way or another if we don't find out for certain what's going on with our planet, congratulations.

Just a note, I am purposely phrasing the question AGW (anthropomorphic global warming). NOT buying into and asking about "climate change," which is a sort of blurred ambiguous catch all phrase as far as I can tell, and for which when the phrase is used, the typical use is affirmative and inclusive of the AGW concept, if not synonymous.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Lethn on July 17, 2015, 06:57:55 PM

This is the conclusion I have come to when it comes to climate change now, the science has been completely poisoned because of the amount of propaganda from both sides instead of simply stating what we do know and what we don't know. In other words all these fuckers including you lot who have turned this into a political problem are responsible for fucking over the planet one way or another if we don't find out for certain what's going on with our planet, congratulations.

Oh relax. Sure it is fun feeling bitter about things that you can do nothing about. But feel good that you are among the few who understand this about global warming, or whatever it is.

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

This is the conclusion I have come to when it comes to climate change now, the science has been completely poisoned because of the amount of propaganda from both sides instead of simply stating what we do know and what we don't know. In other words all these fuckers including you lot who have turned this into a political problem are responsible for fucking over the planet one way or another if we don't find out for certain what's going on with our planet, congratulations.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Spendulus on July 17, 2015, 06:45:34 PM

Quote from: Wilikon on July 17, 2015, 06:17:14 PM

I am a big believer in the Anthropogenic Global Warming "project". Huge, mega believer. What is 21 years in the lifetime of a planet? Nothing. Satellite technology is what? So new and untested. But we can stop it. We can stop the Anthropogenic Global Warming "project". Also it is unscientific to deny the Anthropogenic Global Warming "project". Borderline illegal and even racist...

I accept the evidence of No No Global Warming...

Cool

LOL...

<>
Now that's a Fine Outstanding Comment, Young Man. You can go far.

I'll put a good word in for you with the Kommisar.

<>

I will NOT argue the issues in this thread.

I'm sticking to asking the questions in the OP.

However, in the original hard copy of Larry Niven's Fallen Angels (science fiction), Niven and his fellow writers included a bibliography of, say, a dozen and a half scientific writings that show that we are on the edge of a little ice age. Standard science of today is showing that whatever global warming exists, the rate of warming increase is slowing down.

Topic: Do you accept the evidence of No Global Warming? (Read 1180 times)