POLL - Do you believe in last 2 decades it has been warming?

[saddampbuh]

man made global warming is a hoax

if you believe it is not a hoax but do not support nuking india and china you need to shut the fuck up about it because that would be the only way to stop it

[n2004al]

Yes or no?  I am continuing the same question as in the other thread but have used the "poll" option.

We're now going on 21 years.

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

"Satellite data show no global warming for 21 years."

The satellite must be broken. Here where I live every year is getting hotter and hotter. I remember that not to many years (and before) ago the thermometer never arrived at 38 grades Celsius. This summer (these days) the temperatures are 40 grades Celsius. And we have august after.

I remember the time of my youth. The 36 grades Celsius were considered a very high temperature here. Now its almost normal to have this temperature during the summer.

[RoadTrain]

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for May in the 136-year period of record, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.08°C (0.14°F). This ties with February 1998 as the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months.

[Lauda]

I got to admit it sure seems hotter than ever before here.  

But it's always like that in summer in Texas.  (LOL...)

So are you claiming that the relative humidity has increased?  Sounds that way.   I can't recall offhand if the hydrological cycle has long term cycles, except regionally.  Certainly that's the case like in the US Pacific Northwest, 60-80 year climate cycle influenced by the ocean's Pacific Decadal Oscillation.  Not well understood by a lot of people, I guess.

Well I have read about the potential global warming hoax, and did some research to find out more. If I combine my findings with personal experience I would say that it is not a hoax.
Yes, we could say that I'm claiming just that. I was just trying to describe what happens once water surface temperature and air temperature becomes hotter. I remember maybe 10 years ago, even on the hottest days one could go outside for a while. However, now with 40+ Celsius there is no just way. Also I can feel the sun burn heavily on the skin (even when the temperature is lower, which suggests Ozone depletion).

[Ingatqhvq]

It's a bit hot than ten years ago. but not too much.
                                                                                               

[okae]

Yes or no?  I am continuing the same question as in the other thread but have used the "poll" option.

We're now going on 21 years.

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

"Satellite data show no global warming for 21 years."

uncertain, and more if the news come from than source thay i didnt beleive

btw to tell you the truth we, the humans, are just like a breath of air in this big universe that we will never understand, mother earth is more than our small thoughts, we are nothing to understand how things are going on with it, what about if the earth is just trying to regule himselft? and we cant understand it?


in the other side, yes, we are like a bad plague for this world, but enought to damage it?, maybe yes...

[Spendulus]

Yes or no?  I am continuing the same question as in the other thread but have used the "poll" option.

We're now going on 21 years.

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

"Satellite data show no global warming for 21 years."

Give us a reputable source and we may believe you. The Daily Caller is political propaganda.

Not seeking "people to believe me."  But you have a point about the "Daily Caller."  I'm reluctant to change the wording of a poll in midpoling, but see wikipedia, "global warming hiatus."

[Spendulus]

I got to admit it sure seems hotter than ever before here.  

But it's always like that in summer in Texas.  (LOL...)

So are you claiming that the relative humidity has increased?  Sounds that way.   I can't recall offhand if the hydrological cycle has long term cycles, except regionally.  Certainly that's the case like in the US Pacific Northwest, 60-80 year climate cycle influenced by the ocean's Pacific Decadal Oscillation.  Not well understood by a lot of people, I guess.

Well I have read about the potential global warming hoax, and did some research to find out more. If I combine my findings with personal experience I would say that it is not a hoax.
Yes, we could say that I'm claiming just that. I was just trying to describe what happens once water surface temperature and air temperature becomes hotter. I remember maybe 10 years ago, even on the hottest days one could go outside for a while. However, now with 40+ Celsius there is no just way. Also I can feel the sun burn heavily on the skin (even when the temperature is lower, which suggests Ozone depletion).

Trends in humidity is a very interesting subject, so I post the following general discussion with a precaution.  Often arguments are incorrectly framed "pro or con global warming" when in fact they are "pro or con regional trends," those being the product of well known (although not well understood) multi decadal climate cycles.  I guess the way I would summarize the issue is multiple factors are at work, some can be chosen to support one hypothesis and others can be chosen to support the opposite hypothesis. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/20/declining-relative-humidity-is-defying-global-warming-models/

[Spendulus]

Other thread got locked before I could respond. Responding here to input my thoughts on the topic. Quoting other thread for context.

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?

Basically, yes. Satellites infer temperature based on measurements of radiance wavelengths and then use an algorithm to calculate temperature. When you plot along all the points inaccuracies can arise (degrading equipment on satellites, correct association between wavelength radiance and temperature (inference accuracy), and quality/accuracy of algorithm to compute inferred temperature), taking ground-based measurements seems far more reliable. Couple this study's outlier data with all the ground-based measurements we have showing rising temperatures, and photographic satellite evidence of shrinking/retreating ice cover in the polar caps, and the evidence seems to support the conclusion the Earth is warming.

That is the way I phrased the question.  "Here is one data set" vs personal beliefs, other data, whatever.

[jaysabi]

Other thread got locked before I could respond. Responding here to input my thoughts on the topic. Quoting other thread for context.

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?

Basically, yes. Satellites infer temperature based on measurements of radiance wavelengths and then use an algorithm to calculate temperature. When you plot along all the points inaccuracies can arise (degrading equipment on satellites, correct association between wavelength radiance and temperature (inference accuracy), and quality/accuracy of algorithm to compute inferred temperature), taking ground-based measurements seems far more reliable. Couple this study's outlier data with all the ground-based measurements we have showing rising temperatures, and photographic satellite evidence of shrinking/retreating ice cover in the polar caps, and the evidence seems to support the conclusion the Earth is warming.

That is the way I phrased the question.  "Here is one data set" vs personal beliefs, other data, whatever.

One other thing I noticed in the findings is that they use the phrase 'no statistically significant warming' or something to that effect. That leaves open the possibility that they observed some warming but that the statistical model they're using has caused them to conclude it falls within a negligible range. It's another area for inaccuracy or inference of data to arise. I wonder how small a change has to be or how large it can be to be "statistically insignificant."

[Spendulus]

Other thread got locked before I could respond. Responding here to input my thoughts on the topic. Quoting other thread for context.

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?

Basically, yes. Satellites infer temperature based on measurements of radiance wavelengths and then use an algorithm to calculate temperature. When you plot along all the points inaccuracies can arise (degrading equipment on satellites, correct association between wavelength radiance and temperature (inference accuracy), and quality/accuracy of algorithm to compute inferred temperature), taking ground-based measurements seems far more reliable. Couple this study's outlier data with all the ground-based measurements we have showing rising temperatures, and photographic satellite evidence of shrinking/retreating ice cover in the polar caps, and the evidence seems to support the conclusion the Earth is warming.

That is the way I phrased the question.  "Here is one data set" vs personal beliefs, other data, whatever.

One other thing I noticed in the findings is that they use the phrase 'no statistically significant warming' or something to that effect. That leaves open the possibility that they observed some warming but that the statistical model they're using has caused them to conclude it falls within a negligible range. It's another area for inaccuracy or inference of data to arise. I wonder how small a change has to be or how large it can be to be "statistically insignificant."

Um, I would have to say "don't be concerned about that."  Because all measured datasets have bounds of error, so stating the statistical significance really is the only way to do it. 

But another way to look at it is simply, yeah, how is this done?  Motl explains it here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/no-statistically-significant-warming-since-1995-a-quick-mathematical-proof/

That's first semester statistics, applied to the satellite data - in 2009....

This goes into exhaustive detail...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/

Dr. Judith Curry has a solid reputation as never backing down from where ever the scientific facts lead her.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/



Short story, I'm comfortable with the phrasing as used in the poll question.

[RoomBot]

Yes.

Some of it is human-made, some due to natural warming, IMO.

also:

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.

The Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average.

ENSO-neutral conditions continued in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2012 as sea surface temperature anomalies continued to rise. The June worldwide ocean surface temperatures ranked as the 10th warmest June on record.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–June 2012 was the 11th warmest on record, at 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201206

[jaysabi]

Other thread got locked before I could respond. Responding here to input my thoughts on the topic. Quoting other thread for context.

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?

Basically, yes. Satellites infer temperature based on measurements of radiance wavelengths and then use an algorithm to calculate temperature. When you plot along all the points inaccuracies can arise (degrading equipment on satellites, correct association between wavelength radiance and temperature (inference accuracy), and quality/accuracy of algorithm to compute inferred temperature), taking ground-based measurements seems far more reliable. Couple this study's outlier data with all the ground-based measurements we have showing rising temperatures, and photographic satellite evidence of shrinking/retreating ice cover in the polar caps, and the evidence seems to support the conclusion the Earth is warming.

That is the way I phrased the question.  "Here is one data set" vs personal beliefs, other data, whatever.

One other thing I noticed in the findings is that they use the phrase 'no statistically significant warming' or something to that effect. That leaves open the possibility that they observed some warming but that the statistical model they're using has caused them to conclude it falls within a negligible range. It's another area for inaccuracy or inference of data to arise. I wonder how small a change has to be or how large it can be to be "statistically insignificant."

Um, I would have to say "don't be concerned about that."  Because all measured datasets have bounds of error, so stating the statistical significance really is the only way to do it. 

But another way to look at it is simply, yeah, how is this done?  Motl explains it here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/no-statistically-significant-warming-since-1995-a-quick-mathematical-proof/

That's first semester statistics, applied to the satellite data - in 2009....

This goes into exhaustive detail...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/

Dr. Judith Curry has a solid reputation as never backing down from where ever the scientific facts lead her.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/



Short story, I'm comfortable with the phrasing as used in the poll question.

Fair enough. The first link answered my question well.

[Spendulus]

Yes.

Some of it is human-made, some due to natural warming, IMO.

also:

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.

The Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average.

ENSO-neutral conditions continued in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2012 as sea surface temperature anomalies continued to rise. The June worldwide ocean surface temperatures ranked as the 10th warmest June on record.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–June 2012 was the 11th warmest on record, at 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201206

Can I correctly paraphrase this as "I'll believe the land numbers, not the satellite numbers?"

[RoomBot]

Yep, as voted.

[jaysabi]

Yes.

Some of it is human-made, some due to natural warming, IMO.

also:

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.

The Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average.

ENSO-neutral conditions continued in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2012 as sea surface temperature anomalies continued to rise. The June worldwide ocean surface temperatures ranked as the 10th warmest June on record.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–June 2012 was the 11th warmest on record, at 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201206

Can I correctly paraphrase this as "I'll believe the land numbers, not the satellite numbers?"

Yes, but only with the understanding that it's not simply choosing which data set to believe. The accuracy and reliability associated with each method informs which one I find more credible.

[RoadTrain]

Another report from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This was also the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months, while January 2007 had the third highest, at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above its monthly average.]The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This was also the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months, while January 2007 had the third highest, at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above its monthly average.

[Spendulus]

Another report from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This was also the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months, while January 2007 had the third highest, at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above its monthly average.]The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This was also the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months, while January 2007 had the third highest, at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above its monthly average.

Please clarify.  The question is not being argued, the poll is being answered.

Relative to the poll question this means....?

[BADecker]

From https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/180209-2015-07-21-satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-22nd-year-without-global.htm.

----------Quote

Here is the summary:

After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 22nd year without a statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.

Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville's satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there's been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 22 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth's atmosphere.

Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged "hiatus" in global warming.

----------End Quote

[Spendulus]

From https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/180209-2015-07-21-satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-22nd-year-without-global.htm.

----------Quote

Here is the summary:

After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 22nd year without a statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.

Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville's satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there's been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 22 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth's atmosphere.

Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged "hiatus" in global warming.

----------End Quote

Yes, this is the question of the poll.

On the one hand, you have satellite sensors which show no warming.

On the other hand, you have land based sensors which do appear to show warming.

LOL...I find it rather interesting.  It's a scientific controversy really.  But answers can and will be based on personal experience, other evidence, political beliefs, etc.  Answer anyway you feel is correct.