Does anyone still believe in Global Warming? Have we all finally concluded that it was a hoax?

SomeCoach wrote:

I'm just curious as to what part of my post you find to be "shill". There is not one piece of my post that you can refute, everything I posted is fact . . .

SomeCoach wrote:

5. IF you use the UAH Satellite record as the accepted temperature record (this is an important distinction; I prefer it because it eliminates UHI) then the past 18 years, 1 month of data produces a trend of -0.1 degree per decade. Essentially, flat lined. No BS here, using this temperature record produces a planet which hasn't warmed in 18+ years. Thus, THE PAUSE. This doesn't mean the planet isn't WARMER (of course, the question arises as to what is used as a baseline, but that usually produces even more quacks)and a warmer planet will produce melt that wasn't observed in the past.

re "shill": Why would a neutral observer use a baseline of "18 years, 1 month" on a data set that extends for about twice that period? Particularly when one is making a case that hinges on statistical significance which improves with more data. A neutral observer might confuse this selection of a data interval with cherry-picking the data to get a result most favorable to one's personal biases.

re "refute": Ignoring that, you confused your memes and made a sign error. The UAH data set has a linear trend of about +0.1 degree decade over that period not -0.1 as you stated. The 18 year, 1 month meme is zero trend over that period for the RSS data set, not UAH. On the topic of satellite vs surface measurements, here's a link to a discussion of "The recent slowing in the rise of global temperatures" by one of the guys who generates the satellite data set.

It includes the statement, "A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)", so curiously one of the guys who knows a thing or two about the problems associated with remote sensing doesn't share your confidence in its authority.

Your observations about CO2 saturation are contradicted by both theory and empirical (HITRAN) data, so the bluster about Beers law is ironic.

Ok Conundum, since you're the resident expert, what's the deal with the Arctic Ice Sheet? This thing was suppose to be melting and raising sea levels, and stuff. What happened?

Gnome Chomsky wrote:

Ok Conundum, since you're the resident expert, what's the deal with the Arctic Ice Sheet? This thing was suppose to be melting and raising sea levels, and stuff. What happened?

Not sure if you are just kidding but

1) It is the Antarctic ice sheet that is supposed to be melting and raising sea levels (and stuff)

2) What happened? Well, it turns out that it is melting and raising sea levels (and stuff)

So the message that we're supposed to get by viewing those two links is that the ice sheet is growing but is supposed to completely disappear in the coming centuries?

Benghazi and Global Warming, who cares?

Republicans............please STFU!!! Find something better to do like hunting, 4 wheeling or re enacting the Civil War.

Boooga booga wrote:

So the message that we're supposed to get by viewing those two links is that the ice sheet is growing but is supposed to completely disappear in the coming centuries?

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

Okokokokk wrote:

Benghazi and Global Warming, who cares?

Republicans............please STFU!!! Find something better to do like hunting, 4 wheeling or re enacting the Civil War.

Wow, all you have to do is add me banging my cousin Betty Sue and searching for Obama's Birth Certificate, you would have described my life in a nutshell.

Conundrum wrote:

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

There are none so blind as those who see what they want to see

Boooga booga wrote:

So the message that we're supposed to get by viewing those two links is that the ice sheet is growing but is supposed to completely disappear in the coming centuries?

Well, apparently the message is that you do not know how to read.

Let me help you out with that. What part of:

"Antarctica is melting, not growing. In fact the ice mass is dropping at an accelerating rate due to multiple factors including accelerated glacial ice calving rates. The loss of sea based ice allows the Antarctic ice to move faster towards the ocean resulting in an increased rate of loss of the Antarctic ice.

Anarctica Warming

Antarctica is losing ice mass while gaining ice extent. This is a confusing point to some. There are a few keys that can help us understand what this means in the context of global warming.

Land ice is different than sea ice. Antarctica is losing ice"

is it that you found confusing?

Sally V wrote:

No Way and others who always contest my contention that the Earth's temp has not risen in last 18 years - please look at this graph (it shows quite clearly - and 2014 was even cooler than 2013!):

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/satellite-data-no-global-warming-past-18-years

1) "CNSNews.com was founded by L. Brent Bozell III on June 16, 1998, under the name Conservative News Service and the domain name conservativenews.org."--Hafner, Katie (June 18, 1998). "New Conservative News Site Will Fill a Void, Founder Says". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-07-28. cited in

2) From your link: "The 'plateau' is evident in the climate record [Dr. John] Christy and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer compiled using actual raw temperature data collected from 14 instruments aboard various weather satellites." Yeah, I'm gonna go with the stuff compiled by NOAA and NASA, thanks, including the conclusion that there've already been TWO years (2005 and 2010, IIRC) that were warmer (globally) than 1998.

3) From the Wiki article about John Christy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy):

"Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments. Since the data correction of August 1998 (and the major La Niña Pacific Ocean warming event of the same year), data collected by satellite instruments has shown an average global warming trend in the atmosphere. From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAHuntsville satellite record." [Emphases mine--sources provided in the Wiki article.]

4) Yes, suppose we do take a look at that graph you linked to, the one that those two scientists produced. Does it indicate anything to the naked eye, other than that 1998 was anomalously warm AND that global temps have trended upward?

5) "2014 was [note past tense] even cooler than 2013!" There's about 12 weeks left in 2014.

Al Gore worshippers wrote:

...........

To those of us that believe in the majority scientific expert view that anthropogenic, global warming is real, Al Gore has absolutely nothing to do with our view.

To those like you that do not believe the high majority expert opinion, he has TONS to do with with why you feel this way.

You guys are obsessed with Al Gore, not us.

The overnight LOW in Phoenix, AZ has risen substantially (particularly July - September) these past 25 years (from high 70's to mid 80's). I don't see these averages going DOWN anytime soon.

If you want to like at climate change look at average OVERNIGHT LOWS not at record highs.

Conundrum wrote:

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

Welcome to the blind side bro...

Going downtown, gonna see my Al

Gonna sing Gore a song

I'm gonna slurp on his ding dong!

See the irony here. Rather than deal with uncomfortable truths which are contrary to your world view, you prefer the comfort of thinking about and attacking Al Gore.The irony is your refusal to allow yourself to see. But don't worry there will always but an Al Gore to provide comfort for you..

Blind Melon Chitlin' wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

Welcome to the blind side bro...

Going downtown, gonna see my Al

Gonna sing Gore a song

I'm gonna slurp on his ding dong!

Blind Melon Chitlin' wrote:

Welcome to the blind side bro...

Going downtown, gonna see my Al

Gonna sing Gore a song

I'm gonna slurp on his ding dong!

And there, in a nutshell is the right wing "expert" rebuttal to the scientific expert majority opinion on global warming. A song about Al Gore that a 14 y.o. (or maybe a middle aged Rush Limbaugh fan) would find slightly amusing. Outstanding, you should be very proud!

I see the truth hurts...

...De Nile has powerful currents...

...the sooner you surface and see the light, the sooner the pain will subside.

[quote]facticity of da sitchiashun wrote:

Have a beer with a scientist at NCAR/UCAR and ask him what would happen to his career if he were to attempt to publish a paper that countered the current "consensus". This is not science, this is religion.

And that my friends is the crux of the matter! For that matter, as a journalist just try to question if it's really true, and you will find yourself poorer than a letsrun.com regular.

Well, it is your saviour Al Gore that proclaimed in 2007 that (using data from chosen scientific "experts" that you so firmly believe) we are at the edge of an abyss, and if we don't change anything the polar ice cap will disappear by 2013. How is that working for you?

Here is the final say on the matter: Everyone with a shred of intelligence knows that the Global Warming hoax is true and that only dumbf$cks like Democrats would believe it.