Satellite and weather-balloon research released Friday removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming, researchers say.
Surface temperatures have shown small but steady increases since the 1970s, but the tropics had shown little atmospheric heating – and even some cooling. Now, after sleuthing reported in three papers released by the journal Science, revisions have been made to that atmospheric data.
[…]
After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations.
[..]
Mark Herlong of the George C. Marshall Institute declined to comment. The group, financed by the petroleum industry, has used the data disparities to dispute the views of global-warming activists.
No doubt anti-science nuts will inevitably resort to that time-honored tradition of Making Shit Up™. That usually works.
If you’re really interested in this subject, you ought to read State of Fear, by Michael Crichton. It’s a very enlightening book, with an immense amount of peer-reviewed scientific data, which puts a lot of
this in a different light.
But, alas, there’s no anti-science kookism in it, so if you want to attack its veracity, you’ll have to do it without red herrings or straw men. ;-)
State of Fear has been debunked a half dozen times over as nothing more than trash science, further in the proud tradition of Making Shit Up™. Crichton and Bjorn Lomborg — two peas in a pod.
Debunked? He relies on published research, and nothing else. Got cites for that assertion?
I have zero interest in responding to Crichton any more than I’d want to offer a rebut the “concerns” of creationists. It’s nonsense that’s been thoroughly, thoroughly debunked. Crichton is not a scientist, he’s a fiction author, in the business of writing fantasy (dinosaurs and grey goo and the like) and getting as much attention as possible in the process.
Making it up, eh Waldo? I always wondered about these “warming trends” myself. Even if there does appear to be a trend that suggests a warming pattern, who is to say that it is linear, or exponential? Could it not just as likely be cyclical? I mean, assuming that we follow your belief that the Earth is five billion years old, and that records on temperatures only extends back a couple hundred years (in most regions, many areas have even less to rely on than that), and following that there have been multiple ice ages, wouldn’t it make sense that this warming is part of a natural trend where the average temperature rises and falls? Even assuming that we followed the Biblical history of five to ten millenia, that leaves a large potential for this possibility. Yet, we never hear about research being conducted on such an idea, even though it does exist and a number of scientists do believe that to be the case. This idea is not being taught by schools, not pursued by the media, and absolutely shunned by the left. I think that the idea of contrary theories being “made up” is just the best argument you can find to counter them.
While we’ve got our heads in the ground, let’s just list a bunch of other “truths”:
Everyone knows that tax cuts have really helped the economy, and that deficits will have no long term negative effects.
Oh and all those great “free” trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA are really helping the working families, especially those who depend on manufacturing jobs.
MMM…what else?
Oh yeah, the Freedom to Farm act really helped small farmers, and it didn’t in any way contributtoe to the complete domination of American farming by Agricultural Trusts.
Fire is cold, and the world is flat. The moon is still made of green cheese.
Zeus is all powerful.
There’s just as much evidence to support creationism as there is to support all that crazy evolution junk. George W. Bush never did cocaine, and his father never cheated on his wife.
The ones who will really benefit from repealing the Estate Tax will be Farmers and Small businessmen, not billionaires and CEOs of multinational.
Oh, and everybody knows abortion causes breast cancer.
Wpphheeww… glad we got that all cleared up.
I gotta go slam some bacon grease, it’s great for my Atkins diet.
I mean, assuming that we follow your belief that the Earth is five billion years old
CR, that’s like saying “assume that we follow your belief that the Earth is round.” You’ve immediately discredited yourself. Even if you believe that the earth is 18 days old, you can’t just go around saying that without making yourself look silly.
I say the same thing to people who are convinced that Bush “stole” the election last November. Even if you think it’s true, don’t say it — you just sound like a nutcase, and people will feel free to ignore everything else that you say.
records on temperatures only extends back a couple hundred years
We have ice core samples from glaciers across the globe and, of course, from the poles. That gives us many, many thousands of years of data.
Even if there does appear to be a trend that suggests a warming pattern, who is to say that it is linear, or exponential? Could it not just as likely be cyclical? […] This idea is not being taught by schools, not pursued by the media, and absolutely shunned by the left.
Of course it’s taught, and it’s absolutely pursued by the media. I learned about it in my environmental sciences class in Virginia Tech.
I’ll tell you how insurance companies look at it. Huge companies like Swiss Re are doing the math. The data show that we’ve had a tremendous spike in greenhouse gases and global temperatures beginning with industrialization, and increasing at the rate of global industrialization. Now, there’s two ways that they could look at this. The first is that it’s a remarkable coincidence, and one has nothing to do with the other. The other is to look at the obvious interaction between carbon monoxide and ozone (carbon dioxide and water vapor produce the natural greenhouse effect, warming the planet to permit life; adding more carbon dioxide will consequently increase the earth’s temperature) and that the rate of output of carbon monoxide has been mirrored by temperature increases and say “oh, shit, we probably have a concern here.”
Insurers, whose job is to assess risk, did the math, and realized that taking the first path would likely lead to financial ruin. Taking the second path has virtually no danger for them, save that they stood to lose a lot of money by assuming that to be the case, and they’ve chosen it. Gradually, insurers are ceasing to offer coverage in areas of the world that are most likely to be affected by continued global climate change, whether from flooding, hurricanes, or pollution.
We, as a nation and as a planet, have the same choice. We can sit around with our thumbs up our asses and just wait and see if we’re going to hell in a handbasket, or we can do the math on the potential for losses based on either assumption, and start hedging our bets.
When the forecast tells me that there’s an 80% chance of rain, I can either carry my umbrella or I can accuse the weatherman of conspiring with umbrella and radar manufacturers to force unnecessary purchases and water-fear on an unsuspecting public. In the case of the former, hey, I have to tote around and umbrella and maybe I’ll need it, maybe I won’t. In the case of the latter, I could both look like a dumbass and get soaking wet.
It’s just math.
State of Fear and author Michael Crichton were both topics of conversation at a barbecue held this past Thursday in Gate City, so it’s an amusing coincidence to be reading this tonight. The gathering was about 1/3 Republican and 2/3 Democrat, but 1/4 who belived global warming didn’t exist, 1/4 who said it did, and about 1/2 who didn’t know who Michael Crichton was, or want to know…
Just math ;^)