Do you accept the evidence of No Global Warming?

[Spendulus]

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?

[Sourgummies]

What poisons the idea of global warming is two things. First is it hits me every time a big project is shut down because the luddites think it hurts mother earth.
This means less jobs and I think you will find most people in the  global warming denial camp to have that link.
Second is the groups that are profiting off the whole concept of global warming and really driving the issue.


I also do not play well with others and tend not to like being told whats good for me.

[Wilikon]

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...

 

[countryfree]

It's easy for me. I've seen global warming at work! There are cities in Italy which I first visited in the 70's and they have changed. The sea level has risen. Go to Castel Volturno, it used to be a lovely place, now they have floods every year. It's quite likely the city would be totally underwater in 50 years. Go to Chamonix, and check pictures from the place 100 years ago. There was more place snow during summer time than there is now during winter.

[jbrnt]

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

When I see more ice building up in the the arctics, then I will accept there's no global warming.

I think scientists are agreeing there is global warming. They do not agree no what is causing it. Some attribute it to a natural cycle of the Sun, but I don't buy it. We are generating heat with more electrical appliances then ever, we are burning fossil fuels in power plants and vehicles on the streets. How can the Earth not warm up more than 50 years ago?

[BADecker]

I kinda wish there was global warming. The polar ice caps might melt, causing the oceans to rise, and a few cities on the coasts to have to be abandoned. But the benefits to mankind would be tremendous.

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

Extra moisture in the atmosphere would cause the Sahara to bloom - more room for population. The Islamic peoples wouldn't have an excuse for having to live near Israel any longer, so there might be peace for a while.

Moisture in the atmosphere would protect the earth from harmful cosmic and UV radiation. In addition, the moisture in the atmosphere would cause a great increase in natural H2O2, thereby disinfecting the world, and putting the corrupt medical out of business.

All the extra living space would allow people to move out of the present jungles rather than destroying them. The natural pharmacopeia in the jungles could be expanded so that mankind could find herbal substances to increase length of life, so mankind could have enough time to develop space travel to go and inhabit other worlds...

 

[Spendulus]

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...

 

LOL...


<<serious mode off>>
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.

<<serious  mode on>>

I will NOT argue the issues in this thread.

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

[BADecker]

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...

 

LOL...


<<serious mode off>>
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.

<<serious  mode on>>

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.

[Lethn]

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]

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.

[Spendulus]

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.

[jaysabi]

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.

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]

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.

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?

[Lethn]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Beliathon]

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]

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.

[bryant.coleman]

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.