Scientists find errors in global warming data.

August 12, 2005 9:34 AM

Scientists find errors in global warming data. Heating from tropical sunlight was skewing temperatures reported by satelite sensors, making nights look as warm as days. 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. Researchers say it removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming
posted by stbalbach (39 comments total)

Whoa!
A very large and complex scientific study has errors!
Someone call the National Enquirer!

So I suppose the melting of the polar ice caps and the permafrost melt in Siberia are just figments of everyone's imagination then?
Good, 'cause I ain't giving up my gas guzzling, energy wasting ways for no damn bunch of tree huggers. [cough]
posted by nofundy at 9:39 AM on August 12, 2005

You didn't even read the fucking post, nofundy, let alone the linked article. Calm the fuck down and read it.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:42 AM on August 12, 2005

making nights look as warm as days.

That's confusing. That makes it sound like the temperature rise should have been an over-estimate.

I think they mean that what should have been recorded as cool night-time temperatures were mistakenly recorded as warmer daytime temperatures (due to some instrument or software error).
posted by snoktruix at 9:44 AM on August 12, 2005

This is the real vulnerability of science. Real scientists state exactly what they're sure about, and precisely what loose ends exist with their models. They do so openly and honestly.

Con men then find a loose end, point at it, and claim that everything the scientists have figured out is flawed and false, even though the general premise still holds true.
posted by mosch at 9:46 AM on August 12, 2005

And nofundy wins the prize for completely misunderstanding the post and then making a sarcastic comment deriding it.

On a different note, I wonder how the satellite could have made such errors, the article notes that it drifted out of place, but how does this account for measuring nights as days?
posted by cyphill at 9:47 AM on August 12, 2005

whoops I got it the wrong way round. What should have been recorded as warmer daytime temperatures were mistakenly recorded as cooler night-time temperatures. Doh.
posted by snoktruix at 9:48 AM on August 12, 2005

Cool (Warm?). Hope this helps us stop arguing and address the problem.
posted by carmen at 9:48 AM on August 12, 2005

making nights look as warm as days

Making days look as cool as nights.

Misleading, but clear if you read the article. In other words: Good job, nofundy!
posted by voltairemodern at 9:49 AM on August 12, 2005

"making nights look as warm as days" isn't misleading, it's just wrong
posted by snoktruix at 9:51 AM on August 12, 2005

Researchers say it removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming


I'm sure Michael Crichton will be making a public apology before close of business today.

And yeah, nofundy, that stands as one of the most scathing acts of self-parody you have yet committed. Please try to learn from it.
posted by soyjoy at 9:51 AM on August 12, 2005

WHAT NOFUNDY SAID!

Wait, no.

NOT WHAT NOFUNDY SAID!
posted by glenwood at 10:45 AM on August 12, 2005

the George C. Marshall Institute actually did comment. buried under a column of scientific jargon, we get this synopsis:

On the positive side, at least some portion of the disagreement between satellite and thermometer estimates of global temperature trends has now been removed. This helps to further shift the global warming debate out of the realm of "is warming happening?" to "how much has it warmed, and how much will it warm in the future?". (Equally valid questions to debate are "how much of the warmth is man-made?", "is warming necessarily a bad thing?", and "what can we do about it anyway?"). And this is where the debate should be.
posted by dickumbrage at 10:48 AM on August 12, 2005

That's a confusing write-up. Although a pretty good example of plagiarism, if you remember that post.
posted by smackfu at 10:51 AM on August 12, 2005

Their website confirms my worst fears. By the time these petroleum industry lackies finally concede that we need to reduce greenhouse emissions, there won't be any ice left on either pole.
posted by mert at 11:07 AM on August 12, 2005

Metafilter: completely misunderstanding the post and then making a sarcastic comment deriding it.
posted by iamck at 11:41 AM on August 12, 2005

The group, financed by the petroleum industry, has used the data disparities to dispute the views of global-warming activists.

So this doesn't justify my bit of theater?
Oh, well.
Sorry then, just thought I would beat a winger or two to the punch line.
You guys criticizing me need to learn to laugh or chill or something. Geez. So damned serious all the time, how can you absorb all the bad shit with an outlook like that and not go f*cking crazy?

To each her/is own I suppose but I rather liked the composition of the post.
posted by nofundy at 11:45 AM on August 12, 2005

nofundy writes "So damned serious all the time, how can you absorb all the bad shit with an outlook like that and not go f*cking crazy?"

From your point of view, isn't this particular report "good shit"?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:48 AM on August 12, 2005

BTW, my comments weren't "deriding the post" or "misunderstanding it" but commenting upon the bad information we're getting from Exxon and friends disguised as science so let me say thank you for the post stbalbach and I hope you didn't think I was criticizing you or your post, it was well done.
posted by nofundy at 11:50 AM on August 12, 2005

I have no beef with the report or the post mr. roboto, only with Exxon and friends, so yes it is!
posted by nofundy at 11:51 AM on August 12, 2005

"Global warming's pace over the past 30 years has actually been quite slow, a total increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit."

WTF! By who's accounting is 1 degree F change in temperature in 30 years considered SLOW? That's 10% of the temp difference between an ice age and today! I would't call that slow.
posted by humbe at 11:57 AM on August 12, 2005

MetaFilter: NOT WHAT NOFUNDY SAID!
posted by Eideteker at 12:03 PM on August 12, 2005

I'm pretty out of it a lot of the time around here, but hell, I knew where nofundy was coming from.

Weird how 1 degree change in average global temperature equates to such a dramatic difference in perceived climate, whereas I can't really tell whether it's 72 or 73 F when I get in my truck to go to work in the morning.
posted by alumshubby at 12:25 PM on August 12, 2005

Weird how 1 degree change in average global temperature equates to such a dramatic difference in perceived climate, whereas I can't really tell whether it's 72 or 73 F when I get in my truck to go to work in the morning.

I think the idea behind that is that the amount of energy involved in raising the average temperature of something as ginormous as the Earth's biosphere is, well, huge, and that much extra energy in the system breeds big instability.
posted by COBRA! at 12:27 PM on August 12, 2005

Yeah, comes down to the difference between climate and weather. In terms of daily weather a degree F doesn't make much difference, but for climate it's significant.
posted by humbe at 12:28 PM on August 12, 2005

Now my turn to pull a nofundy:

Equally valid questions to debate are "how much of the warmth is man-made?"

No debate, most of it. The only debate comes from the 3 people who are financed by the oil industry that writes your papers for you like the ones that have claimed:

--Satellite temperature measurements show some cooling in the tropics. (thanks for that one dickheads)

--Upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere temperatures are not consistent. (Debunked also because all the warming should be in the lower atmosphere because hey the heat's getting trapped there).

"is warming necessarily a bad thing?"

Goddamn idiots. Yes warming will most likely increase the ocean levels significantly (2-5 METERS). Weather pattern changes will wreak havoc on existing crop lands and more importantly weather and ocean level changes will mean water supply changes.

Bottom line: ANY permanent changes to existing food and water supplies has the great potential to ignite regional and global conflict over these resources. A billion starving Chinese vs. a billion thirsty Indians?

"what can we do about it anyway?"
A whole hell of a lot more than we are now. Plenty of energy saving and carbon neutral technology exists and can be used by our existing infrastructure.

Carbon Neutral Biofuels like biodiesel and ethanol will work in modern combustion engines.

Homes can be built to useZero Energy (pdf on that last link). While the cost of a Zero Energy home is about $20,000 up front, when the cost of this technology is averaged over the life of the home it's actually cheaper than standard.

And the one thing we shouldn't be doing is giving huge tax incentives to oil companies.
posted by aaronscool at 12:59 PM on August 12, 2005

Weird how 1 degree change in average global temperature equates to such a dramatic difference in perceived climate, whereas I can't really tell whether it's 72 or 73 F when I get in my truck to go to work in the morning.
---
I think the idea behind that is that the amount of energy involved in raising the average temperature of something as ginormous as the Earth's biosphere is, well, huge, and that much extra energy in the system breeds big instability.

Okay, but let's say his truck is a Hummer.
posted by hal9k at 1:18 PM on August 12, 2005

Amen aaronscool. And you do me much better that I ever could.
posted by nofundy at 1:19 PM on August 12, 2005

> 1 degree change in average global temperature ...

Centigrade; climate not weather; most of another degree already committed by current CO2; how much positive feedback -- like this methane release from Siberia -- is positive feedback, and bad news.

> I can't really tell whether it's 72 or 73 F when I get in my truck

Weather is not climate.

Consider the unworried frog, comfortable, sitting in a slowly heating pot of water, in a house that's on fire.
posted by hank at 1:33 PM on August 12, 2005

While it's pretty obvious that the increase in warmth is man-made, that actually shouldn't matter, even to the oil companies and other naysayers. Even if the warming was part of a natural cycle, we'd still need to deal with as rapidly as possible... because it can still ruin the biosphere for us.

I hope they get that into their heads. The problem needs attention, period.

The thaw of Siberia is most alarming.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:39 PM on August 12, 2005

Was that supposed to be some kind of stream-of-consciousness poetry, hank? Or are you just in a hurry?
posted by drpynchon at 2:40 PM on August 12, 2005

Somehow I doubt this'll convince the right-wing brigade to recognize reality, but it's definitely a good spot.
posted by clevershark at 3:06 PM on August 12, 2005

aaronscool, you forgot to add that CO2 is an acid and is already and will continue to acidify the oceans as CO2 increases. Ever see what happens to shells when you put them in a weak acid like vinegar? They dissolve. What happens to ocean food chain when the oceans are too acidic for plankton or corals to form?
posted by humbe at 3:18 PM on August 12, 2005

Good link humble. More info Royal Society launches investigation into rising acidity of oceans (Aug 17 2005)
posted by stbalbach at 4:11 PM on August 12, 2005

oops.. thats "humbe" (my humble apologies) and 2004 not 2005.. old news but still interesting.
posted by stbalbach at 4:13 PM on August 12, 2005

BREAKING NEWS!!!1

Newly revealed press release that overly generalizes another overly generalized press release that somehow relates to anthropogenic climate change causes people everywhere to subjectively restate their 'informed' beliefs about how this either Immanentizes the Eschaton, or lays the foundation for another century of Oil-based American Capitalism.

Seriously folks. You didn't learn anything by reading this article. Your 'position' is no different than it was yesterday or last week. Does this regurgitated press release actually change anyone's understanding of anything at all?

Does it even have any positive outlook? Does someone in a lab coat behind several obfuscated layers of USA Today articles and PR departments actually have a better chance of understanding, much less 'fixing' non-human-friendly climate change?
posted by blasdelf at 5:59 PM on August 12, 2005

Wow. Busted. Nice catch, Ben Santer!

Consider the unworried frog, comfortable, sitting in a slowly heating pot of water, in a house that's on fire.

Despite the free-form presentation, that seems like an appropriate metaphor.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:00 PM on August 12, 2005

Not saying there is no global warming, but finding errors in the data you were using to prove that global warming exists somehow proves that global warming exists? Huh?
posted by dagnyscott at 7:14 PM on August 12, 2005

Not saying there is no global warming, but finding errors in the data you were using to prove that global warming exists somehow proves that global warming exists? Huh?

So actually if you read it, the errors were found in a study that the 3 scientists funded by oil and coal industries were using to cast doubt on Global Warming. So yeah "finding errors" in that study pretty much knocks down the last brick of doubt in the skeptics case against Global Warming.

Oh and also since you didn't really seem to read the OP link, once the errors were fixed the data showed a temperature increase consistent with all other studies, computer models and measurements.
posted by aaronscool at 9:51 PM on August 12, 2005

dagnyscott writes "Not saying there is no global warming, but finding errors in the data you were using to prove that global warming exists somehow proves that global warming exists? Huh?"

A classic case of RTFA if I've ever seen one.
posted by clevershark at 10:18 PM on August 12, 2005