• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Global Warming a myth?

Is Global Warming a myth?


  • Total voters
    115
But complete outsiders with no knowledge on the subject are credible eh? That's the point you're trying to make? I'm still taking the scientists over opinionated, biased folk with no training in and little understanding of science.

You're missing the point. The IPCC and GISS are not credible, which makes their theories concerning AGW illegitimate.; not to mention their climate models have been falsified by real scientists.
 
Trend Analysis of Satellite Global Temperature Data

Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.

This report is outdated. Note the end date of the data analyzed - June, 2009.
From your source:

"Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009."



For more up to date analysis ~

January 21, 2010

"The global ocean surface temperature was the second warmest on record for December, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Based on records going back to 1880, the monthly NCDC analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides. Scientists also reported the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the eighth warmest on record for December.

For 2009, global temperatures tied with 2006 as the fifth-warmest on record. Also, the earth’s land surface for 2009 was seventh-warmest (tied with 2003) and the ocean surface was fourth-warmest (tied with 2002 and 2004.)

Highlights for December 2009

* The global ocean temperature was the second warmest on record, behind 1997. The temperature anomaly was 0.97 degree F above the 20th century average of 60.4 degrees F.
* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the eighth warmest on record, at 0.88 degree F above the 20th century average of 54.0 degrees F.
* The global land surface temperature was 0.63 degree F above the 20th century average of 38.7 degrees F - the coolest December anomaly since 2002.

Global Temperature Highlights for 2009

* For the calendar year 2009, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 58.0 degrees F tied with 2006 as the fifth-warmest on record. This value is 1.01 degree F above the 20th century average.
* NCDC scientists also noted the average temperature for the decade (2000-09), 57.9 degrees F, was the warmest on record surpassing the 1990-99 average of 57.7 degrees F. value."

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: December Global Ocean Temperature Second Warmest on Record
 
Trend Analysis of Satellite Global Temperature Data

Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.

NCASI Health Monitor

loehle_fig6_uah.png


loehle_fig6_rss.png

That losses a lot of credibility because it is 1. on a very short time scale, when meteorlogical patterns only become apparent after decades of information, and 2. this is a projected cooling pattern, based off of a incredibly small amount of foundational data.
 
You're missing the point. The IPCC and GISS are not credible, which makes their theories concerning AGW illegitimate.; not to mention their climate models have been falsified by real scientists.

You're also missing the point that the logic behind global warming is sound, regardless of imperical data up to this point.

The logic behind AGW is a logic train, starting at increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, proceeding to increased amounts of evaporation, and ending with the environment responding to the evaporation increase by increasing the temperature, or the amount of entropy in the environment.
 
That losses a lot of credibility because it is 1. on a very short time scale, when meteorlogical patterns only become apparent after decades of information, and 2. this is a projected cooling pattern, based off of a incredibly small amount of foundational data.

1. It's a comprehensive analysis of satellite temperature data from the past thirty years. Despite your insistence to the contrary, warming and cooling patterns are ascertainable within such time frames; the fact that the results do not coincide with your chosen dogma is not my problem. Either address specifically his results (don't bother, they've already been independently verified; even AGW high priest Jones admits there has been no statistically significant warming in the past fifteen years; the data confirms this beyond a doubt) or just stop embarrassing yourself by trying to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific literature.

2. The projection is overlaid on the actual data and they coincide rather well. Furthermore, the projection is not Dr. Loehle's; it's from a separate study and the reason he overlaid the projection was to demonstrate how well their projections have coincided with actual temperature data, which shows cooling relative to 1998. If you had actually bothered to read the study in its entirety you might have noticed that little factoid.

3. Read the study before you fashion another ill-conceived rebuttal.
 
Last edited:
You're also missing the point that the logic behind global warming is sound, regardless of imperical data up to this point.

Sorry, but "it's logical" is not the same thing as "it's proven". Maybe someday you'll learn the difference.

By the way, the phrase, "...regardless of the empirical data..." is not something a scientist would ever say while asserting a theory. I also suspect they would never misspell empirical...

The logic behind AGW is a logic train, starting at increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, proceeding to increased amounts of evaporation, and ending with the environment responding to the evaporation increase by increasing the temperature, or the amount of entropy in the environment.

Yes, I've heard your theory a million god damn times. I understand your theory quite well. As soon as you can produce some solid evidence to support your theory, I'll stop laughing at your amateurish attempts to educate me on basic science.
 
We are having record cold temperatures and snowfall in history across the United States so the question begs to be asked...

The records were for snowfall. The frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, but the intensity of those storms has increased. Why? Hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm occurs it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall.

Any observant skier (or Eskimo) looking at all the snowfall videos for the continental US would immediately see that the snowflakes were large and wet, not small. That indicates snow nucleation at higher temperatures, not lower.
 
Up to June of 2009.

Since then:

"NCDC scientists also noted the average temperature for the decade (2000-09), 57.9 degrees F, was the warmest on record surpassing the 1990-99 average of 57.7 degrees F. value."
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: December Global Ocean Temperature Second Warmest on Record

The satellite temperature data proves there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years. Nothing you say will change that immutable fact. Just because 2009 was the fifth hottest year on record does not mean that the 16 year trend is somehow negated. Moreover, satellite temperature data is the most accurate and consistent measure of global temperatures; the deviation between the two data sets is extremely small. You cited oceanic temperature data, which is not nearly as comprehensive.

Since there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years, we must conclude that the AGW climate models are crap. That doesn't disprove the theory of AGW necessarily, but it certainly disproves the methodology of prominent climatologists.

Either way, I have no hopes of convincing you of anything. You're emotionally invested in AGW being true, so no amount of evidence will convince you of anything. You've accepted the theory as gospel and will continue to push it no matter what.

Consider yourself ignored henceforth.
 
You're also missing the point that the logic behind global warming is sound, regardless of imperical data up to this point.

The logic of phlogiston worked well, too.

The efforts of people like Lavoisseur put an end to phlogiston.

So did the logic of Aristotle and Ptolemy worked for a thousand years.

The efforts of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton put and to Ptolemy.

Facts trump theory.

That's the heart of science.

The facts trump AGW.
 
That losses a lot of credibility because it is 1. on a very short time scale, when meteorlogical patterns only become apparent after decades of information, and 2. this is a projected cooling pattern, based off of a incredibly small amount of foundational data.

As opposed to AGW's projected warming pattern based of an incredibly long train of falsified research?
 
As opposed to AGW's projected warming pattern based of an incredibly long train of falsified research?

Very few people question the data itself, we just question the theiry behind the cause of the change.

To claim the data was false would be to essentially claim that the ice age is not comming to an end, and that is stupid. We simply question the theory that is being espoused as to the cause of the change.
 
The satellite temperature data proves there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years. Nothing you say will change that immutable fact. Just because 2009 was the fifth hottest year on record does not mean that the 16 year trend is somehow negated. Moreover, satellite temperature data is the most accurate and consistent measure of global temperatures; the deviation between the two data sets is extremely small. You cited oceanic temperature data, which is not nearly as comprehensive.

Since there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years, we must conclude that the AGW climate models are crap. That doesn't disprove the theory of AGW necessarily, but it certainly disproves the methodology of prominent climatologists.

Your referenced study only used data up to June 2009:

"Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009."

Whereas the NCDC study was for the entire year of 2009 compared with data dating back to 1958.

"NCDC scientists also noted the average temperature for the decade (2000-09), 57.9 degrees F, was the warmest on record surpassing the 1990-99 average of 57.7 degrees F. value."

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: December Global Ocean Temperature Second Warmest on Record

You cooling theory also does not explain the continued loss of mass of the ice caps and glaciers world wide.

"The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term mass balance series around the world continues to decrease, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 1.4 m w.e. during the hydrological year 2006. This continues the trend in accelerated ice loss during the past two and a half decades and brings the total loss since 1980 at more than 10.5 m w.e."
World Glacier Monitoring Service
 
350,000,000 Live down river of the Ganges.
The Gangroti Glacier that is it's source, is Melting an an Increasing rate.
What will happen in 20 years when it slows to a trickle and 30 when it dies?

Or similary, in 20 years, when Glacier National Park, has NO Glaciers. (!)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=4594

gangotri_ast_2001252.jpg


"....For instance, 150 years ago there were 147 glaciers in Glacier National Park. Today, only 37 glaciers remain, and scientists say they will likely completely melt by the year 2030.

Similarly, glaciers all across the Alps are retreating and disappearing every year.

What causes any given glacier to grow or shrink over time? Scientists at the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in concert with NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), are developing a global inventory of all the world’s glaciers to help researchers track each glacier’s history. The inventory combines current information on size and movement with historical data, maps, and photos of each glacier. The purpose is to better enable scientists to correlate changes in each glacier with any shifts in local climate, such as temperature or precipitation changes. (For more information, read the feature article entitled Sizing Up the Earth’s Glaciers.)
But it is not feasible to visit and measure every major glacier on Earth. There are almost 160,000 glaciers in Earth’s polar regions and high mountain environments. Therefore, researchers are increasingly using satellite remote sensors to routinely survey our world’s glaciers in a fraction of the time and cost it would otherwise take.

The false-color image above shows the Gangotri Glacier, situated in the Uttarkashi District of Garhwal Himalaya. Currently 30.2 km long and between 0.5 and 2.5 km wide, Gangotri glacier is one of the largest in the Himalaya. Gangotri has been receding since 1780, although studies show its retreat quickened after 1971. (Please note that the blue contour lines drawn here to show the recession of the glacier’s terminus over time are approximate.) Over the last 25 years, Gangotri glacier has retreated more than 850 meters, with a recession of 76 meters from 1996 to 1999 alone.
 
Last edited:
350,000,000 Live down river of the Ganges.
The Gangroti Glacier that is it's source, is Melting at an Increasing rate.
What will happen in 20 years when it slows to a trickle and 30 when it dies?

Or similarly, in 20 years, when Glacier National Park, has NO Glaciers. (!)

Retreat of the Gangotri Glacier : Image of the Day

gangotri_ast_2001252.jpg
Assuming, of course, that the climate doesn't change again and the glaciers start growing...
 
Assuming, of course, that the climate doesn't change again and the glaciers start growing...
!!

The retreat is from noted from 1780, 230 Years and is Increasing at a significant Rate the last 50, and even the last 10 years.
And about 1000 feet shorter than even the 2001 line noted in the photo.

Figure it out .. and try and make more substantial replies to Evidence presented.

And say bye, you're on 'ignore', I have no interest, IN no-interest NON-replies as yours.
Real discussion welcome.
 
Last edited:
350,000,000 Live down river of the Ganges.
The Gangroti Glacier that is it's source, is Melting an an Increasing rate.
What will happen in 20 years when it slows to a trickle and 30 when it dies?

Or similary, in 20 years, when Glacier National Park, has NO Glaciers. (!)

Retreat of the Gangotri Glacier : Image of the Day

gangotri_ast_2001252.jpg



Makes it hard to cling to a global cooling theory in light of physical evidence of glacier destruction.

Excellent post!
 
!!

The retreat is from noted from 1780, 230 Years and is Increasing at a significant Rate the last 50, and even the last 10 years.

Figure it out. And try and make more substantial replies to Evidence presented.

And say bye, you're on 'ignore', I have no interest, IN no-interest NON-replies as yours.
Real discussion welcome.
Wait, what?

:confused:

How is what I said a "no-interest NON-reply"?

I was even stating an obvious fact.

IF the climate starts cooling, one would have to assume that glaciers would grow, as they are made of ice.....

And how can you possibly predict the future and be sure that the climate won't start cooling?

Lastly, how the hell does that statement merit a response of putting me on “ignore”?

And additionally, "substantial replies" are not always necessary to get a point across. Indeed, sometimes the very brevity of a statement makes it stand out.
 
Last edited:
!!

The retreat is from noted from 1780, 230 Years and is Increasing at a significant Rate the last 50, and even the last 10 years.
And about 1000 feet shorter than even the 2001 line noted in the photo.

Figure it out .. and try and make more substantial replies to Evidence presented.

And say bye, you're on 'ignore', I have no interest, IN no-interest NON-replies as yours.
Real discussion welcome.

No.

The bottom of the Little Ice Age was in 1650. Hence the warming trend began then.

Ignoring people, the best way to pretend you've won an argument.
 
A Sacred River Endangered by Global Warming
Glacial Source of Ganges Is Receding

PH2007061601260.jpg

Indian families wash their laundry and bathe in the Ganges River.
The Gangotri glacier, which provides up to 70% of the river's water in summer,
is shrinking at a rate of 40 yards a year, scientists say.

(Emily Wax - The Washington Post)


A Sacred River Endangered by Global Warming - washingtonpost.com


"This may be the first place on Earth where Global Warming could hurt our very religion. We are becoming an endangered species of Hindus,"

said Veer Bhadra Mishra, an engineer and director of the Varanasi-based Sankat Mochan Foundation, an organization that advocates for the preservation of the Ganges. "The melting glaciers are a terrible thing. We have to ask ourselves, who are the custodians of our culture if we can't even help our beloved Ganga?"
[.........]
But recent reports by scientists say the Ganges is under even greater threat from global warming. According to a U.N. climate report, the Himalayan glaciers that are the sources of the Ganges could disappear by 2030 as temperatures rise.

The shrinking glaciers also threaten Asia's supply of fresh water. The World Wildlife Fund in March listed the Ganges among the world's 10 most endangered rivers. In India, the river provides more than 500 million people with water for drinking and farming.

The immediate effect of glacier recession is a Short-lived surplus of water.
But eventually the supply runs out, and experts predict that the Ganges eventually will become a seasonal river, largely dependent on monsoon rains.....
 
Last edited:
A Sacred River Endangered by Global Warming
Glacial Source of Ganges Is Receding

PH2007061601260.jpg

Indian families wash their laundry and bathe in the Ganges River. The Gangotri glacier, which provides up to 70 percent of the river's water in summer, is shrinking at a rate of 40 yards a year, scientists say. (Emily Wax - The Washington Post)

A Sacred River Endangered by Global Warming - washingtonpost.com


It is SOOOO FUN! to see someone posting about melting glaciers after the IPCC's panic attacks on the issue were proven to be driven by well referenced and thorougly peer reviewed articles in Climbing Magazine, isn't it?
 
It is SOOOO FUN! to see someone posting about melting glaciers after the IPCC's panic attacks on the issue were proven to be driven by well referenced and thorougly peer reviewed articles in Climbing Magazine, isn't it?
"Climbing Magazine".
That's SOOOOOOO Funny

These are Actual Photos (NASA) and documented Data
(Including Many on ground surveys, including Including Indian govt) on the Ganges, and A simple count at Glacier National Park.
NOT in dispute/Not DisputABLE.


Did "Climbing" rebut any of what I'm posting?

No.
 
Last edited:
Very few people question the data itself, we just question the theiry behind the cause of the change.

You mean outside of the people who questioned the data and found it fraudulent.

Yes very few of the people who didn't question the data questioned the data.

To claim the data was false would be to essentially claim that the ice age is not comming to an end, and that is stupid. We simply question the theory that is being espoused as to the cause of the change.

HellOOO?

The Ice Age ended.

Note the use of the past tense in the above sentence.

We are now in the interstadial period and awaiting eagerly the resumption of the next ice age, I think we should call it "Willy", in roughly 15,000 years.

In the meantime, we're enjoying a naturally variable climate.

Enough of the data was faked to make sure that all pro-AGW data must be treated as suspect, especially since the globe's been cooling for a decade now.
 
"Climbing Magazine".
That's SOOOOOOO Funny

These are Actual Photos (NASA) and documented Data
(Including Many on ground surveys, including Including Indian govt) on the Ganges, and A simple count at Glacier National Park.
NOT in dispute/Not DisputABLE.


Did "Climbing" rebut any of what I'm posting?

No.

Yes.

Climbing magazine.

If you paid attention to the scandals surrounding your religion you'd have heard this. So quit genuflecting to Gaia and watch Fox News.
 
Yes.

Climbing magazine.

If you paid attention to the scandals surrounding your religion you'd have heard this. So quit genuflecting to Gaia and watch Fox News.

I hope your UNLINKED/EMPTY Claim/Claims from "Climbing"... ROTFLMAO ... can feed ½ BILLION Indians when the Ganges runs dry.

Those 'Scandals' have NOTHING to do with these actual Ganges FACTS.
Nor the amount of Glaciers in 'Glacier' National Park.


Because if Climate scientists are just "wrong" for another 20 years, (as the last 50) maybe you and your petons can send India Rice.
(Or sell snowmaking equipment to Glacier Natl Park, so it isn't embarrassed)
-
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom