Errors In Global Warming Data (both ways)

[rushmc 23]

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Fri Aug 12, 7:32 AM ET

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.


Climate expert Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, lead author of one of the papers, says that those fairly steady measurements in the tropics have been a key argument "among people asking, 'Why should I believe this global warming hocus-pocus?' "


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.


"Our hats are off to (them). They found a real source of error," says atmospheric scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, whose team produced the lower temperature estimates.


When examining the balloon data, Yale University researchers found that heating from tropical sunlight was skewing the temperatures reported by sensors, making nights look as warm as days.


Once corrected, the satellite and balloon temperatures align with other surface and upper-atmosphere measures, as well as climate change models, Santer says.


Global warming's pace over the past 30 years has actually been quite slow, a total increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit. It is predicted to accelerate in this century.


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. In recent years, however, the institute has softened its public statements, acknowledging that the planet is indeed getting warmer but still maintaining that the change is happening so slowly that the impact is minimal.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[storm1977 0]

Some here, BillVon would have you believe Nothing could be wrong with these data.
These mistakes (in my Professional Opinion) are inexcusable, and go to show you what type of "Real" research is being conducted here.

The world is spend TRILLIONS on programs and fixes to combat GW, based on flawed data. (Flawed both ways).

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[rushmc 23]

I learned along time ago that most of the reports can not be trusted. I want to know who is paying for the research and what the financial implications are.

Too many agendas. (and I believe the global warming group to have a very LARGE agenda)

When I learned who paid for the "freon is destroying the ozone" report and who benefited from that report I became a true skeptic

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[storm1977 0]

Again, Bill disagrees with me, but I am in the field with a research institution, and I can tell you this, a LOT of GW research is politically motivated and funded.

Many researchers are Liberal minded working for liberal mided Universities, with great funding :-)

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 3,118]

>Some here, BillVon would have you believe
>Nothing could be wrong with these data.

No. There are often problems with experimental data. Indeed, had there been only one data set that indicated we are affecting climate, then there would not be much of an issue. There are dozens.

However, if your point is "data can be wrong so nothing's valid!" I must disagree. People use such reasoning to claim that smoking is safe, that you shouldn't wear your seatbelt, that the Holocaust never happened. Generally it's just because they don't like the information, rather than a flaw with the information itself.

Edited to add - you do realize that the errors showed climate change acting MORE slowly than some believe?

[storm1977 0]

Yes, I read the article.... I have never said GW doesn't exist, but in the discussions we have had, I have stated, that GW is not occuring at an alarming rate, and the evidence to support that humans are ultimately the cause, is politically motivated.

In past discussions you said that if anything, the politics would favor researchers finding humans were not the cause. I disagreed.

What bothers me is when people quote experimental research and state the data as factual. (I am Not implicating you Bill)
As of now, with all the research which has been done, one must realize there is HUGE speculation and assumptions which are made as to the continuation of or extent of GW. And, to simply say that most of the research is not politically motived or funded is naive.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 3,118]

>I have never said GW doesn't exist, but in the discussions we have
> had, I have stated, that GW is not occuring at an alarming rate . . .

Cool! That's progress. In 2003 you said that global warming was just a news story. I'm glad you think it may have some validity now. I agree that it is occurring slowly now; the only areas heavily affected so far are the northern latitudes. I worry that the rate of change will not always be as slow as it is now.

>and the evidence to support that humans are ultimately the cause,
>is politically motivated.

I think the opposite, actually. I think there has been tremendous political pressure to prove there _is_ no link, since it could cost oil and coal companies trillions of dollars in profits. Who makes money by falsifying evidence that anthropogenic warming is real?

>And, to simply say that most of the research is not politically motived
>or funded is naive.

?? All public funding for science is politically motivated, something you must realize if you have to apply for grants in your line of work. In general private funding comes with even more strings attached, since private funding often seeks to prove a specific result. That doesn't mean the science that results is bad.

[billvon 3,118]

Update - while I agree that global warming is currently happening slowly, I worry that we will exceed a threshold that will greatly accelerate some part of it. Here's one example no one thought of:


-----------------------------
Climate warning as Siberia melts
11 August 2005
Fred Pearce

THE world's largest frozen peat bog is melting. An area stretching for a million square kilometres across the permafrost of western Siberia is turning into a mass of shallow lakes as the ground melts, according to Russian researchers just back from the region.

The sudden melting of a bog the size of France and Germany combined could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.

The news of the dramatic transformation of one of the world's least visited landscapes comes from Sergei Kirpotin, a botanist at Tomsk State University, Russia, and Judith Marquand at the University of Oxford.

Kirpotin describes an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He says that the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt, and this "has all happened in the last three or four years".

What was until recently a featureless expanse of frozen peat is turning into a watery landscape of lakes, some more than a kilometre across. Kirpotin suspects that some unknown critical threshold has been crossed, triggering the melting.

Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3 °C in the last 40 years. The warming is believed to be a combination of man-made climate change, a cyclical change in atmospheric circulation known as the Arctic oscillation, plus feedbacks caused by melting ice, which exposes bare ground and ocean. These absorb more solar heat than white ice and snow.
---------------------------

Everyone is talking about the Gulf Stream stopping, which would have a very minor effect on overall temperatures but a dramatic and devastating effect on the climate on the eastern side of the US (and Europe.) But I have a feeling we may start seeing other issues, such as the massive change in the above bog. Suppose that sort of change happened to, say, the US Northwest instead of a massive bog no one cares about? Worse yet, suppose the released methane is the trigger that starts very rapid warming, triggering other bog melts which releases more methane etc?

Now, none of that may happen. But it's an awfully big gamble to take.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Who makes money by falsifying evidence that anthropogenic warming is real?

Hmmm. Plenty of people and groups.

1) Environmental Political Organizations - the worse the environment and the worse the environmenta outlook, the better.

2) Environmental Monitoring Organizations - bad data means people want more data. They can therefore go get more data and get paid

3) Environmental Policy Wonks - obviously.

4) Corporate America - they make the instruments and provide personnel. They make the satellites and cameras and sensors. They make the scrubbers for the factories. They dispose of wastes. They make the new fuel cells and windmills.

5) Al Gore - made a pretty penny and killed quite a few carbon dioxide abatement mediums (aka trees) in doing. He also generated methane.

6) Third World Countries and the UN - they stand to make plenty from it if the developed countried pump billions or trillions of dollars to them for abatement.

7) R&D - get paid for figuring out how to make a buck off of gobal warming.


There are all kinds of people, industries and countries that make money off of this.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,118]

The only one I agree with is:

>7) R&D - get paid for figuring out how to make a buck off of
>gobal warming.

They will indeed make money off it. The rest will simply see their beliefs proven out; that will NOT make them money. And in a capitalist society, money, not belief, rules.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The only one I agree with is:

>7) R&D - get paid for figuring out how to make a buck off of
>gobal warming.

They will indeed make money off it. The rest will simply see their beliefs proven out; that will NOT make them money. And in a capitalist society, money, not belief, rules.

Sure it will make them money. Every organization needs money to keep going. These organizatiosn have people that work for them.

I did a yahoo search on "global warming" "taks force" and came up with 587,000 hits. I clicked on one link near the bottom of the first page for MSNBC listed "The independent report was made by the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, the Center for American Progress in the United States and the Australia Institute." These organizations need money, right? People to head them.

What about the services? A government wants to do something, they'll hire a person or company with expertise in the issue. Moneymaking.

There's plenty of money to be made with the environmental movement. Heck, I'm getting involved now with bioremediation because there's money to be made with it. The environment has ceated a whole new global industry with billions in revenue per year. And it will only grow.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

What's more, is that this research likely cannot conclusively pinpoint a singular source for the warming or cooling, or whatever it is doing...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,118]

>These organizations need money, right? People to head them.

If you ran an organization dedicated to the election of, say, Jeb Bush, and he was elected - what would become of your job after he won? If you were getting paid, what would become of your paycheck? (Assuming you didn't have another job lined up of course.)

>There's plenty of money to be made with the environmental
>movement.

Definitely. But proving global warming exists does not equate to making more or less money for the proponents of that movement. It DEFINITELY, however, equates to oil and coal companies making less money. And no matter how you look at it, Exxon has more political power than Evergreen Solar.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>These organizations need money, right? People to head them.

If you ran an organization dedicated to the election of, say, Jeb Bush, and he was elected - what would become of your job after he won? If you were getting paid, what would become of your paycheck? (Assuming you didn't have another job lined up of course.)

>There's plenty of money to be made with the environmental
>movement.

Definitely. But proving global warming exists does not equate to making more or less money for the proponents of that movement. It DEFINITELY, however, equates to oil and coal companies making less money. And no matter how you look at it, Exxon has more political power than Evergreen Solar.

I don't agree with you first line. But more than money I think it is a way that people are trying to forcre others into living/beleiving that way that they do. The same thing the left does with the US courts. Can't get it done the right way......do an end around.

Back to the money, DuPont and the freon story is a prime example.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Botellines 0]

Quote

What's more, is that this research likely cannot conclusively pinpoint a singular source for the warming or cooling, or whatever it is doing...

Considering what there is at stake (survival of mankind) i don´t see any problem in expecting the worst and hoping for the best.

In any case, a bit of less pollution will save millions of dollars in respiratory related sickness.

I don´t understand how there is so many people who denies the effects of the global warming when they have nothing to loose if some policies are implemented and a lot to gain. That is if you don´t have economic interests in the oil industrie, of course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

What's more, is that this research likely cannot conclusively pinpoint a singular source for the warming or cooling, or whatever it is doing...

Considering what there is at stake (survival of mankind) i don´t see any problem in expecting the worst and hoping for the best.

In any case, a bit of less pollution will save millions of dollars in respiratory related sickness.

I don´t understand how there is so many people who denies the effects of the global warming when they have nothing to loose if some policies are implemented and a lot to gain. That is if you don´t have economic interests in the oil industrie, of course.

There is much to loose when you consider the changes some are supporting would change economies on a world scale. And we are not just talking oil here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Botellines 0]

Certainly, on a world scale, those who pollute the most will get the short stick of the deal. Ethiopia will not even notice a Kyoto agreement, but the thing is that on a local scale those who stop polluting will benefit themselves as well, and not just the whole world.

In any case, any measure toward less pollution, will affect all bussiness of a kind the same so no one will go bankrupt, it will be a challenge alike for all of them. Regarding foreign services, the government can raise taxes for those imprted goods that have an advantage due to diferences in pollution laws, so can compete with national good in equal conditions.

I am sure that if there is a will, there is a way.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>But proving global warming exists does not equate to making more or less money for the proponents of that movement

The question wasn't "proving", it was "falsifying" evidence. All of Lawrockets groups stay in business as long as the problem either exists or is perceived to exist. You don't need a premise that global warming is true or not, they rake in the donations/grants/salaries as long as the perception is there.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>These organizations need money, right? People to head them.

If you ran an organization dedicated to the election of, say, Jeb Bush, and he was elected - what would become of your job after he won? If you were getting paid, what would become of your paycheck? (Assuming you didn't have another job lined up of course.)

This is different, bill. You know and I know and we all know that once an organization's goal has been achieved, the organization either changes its goal or decides that the goal has not been achieved.

Let's look at labor unions. Labor unions were created to even the playing field between workers and employers. Somewhere along the way, it was figured out that unions make a helluva lot of money. (The mob doesn't do anything unless there is a lot f money to be made. That's why they got into the unions - unions make a freaking fortune). Unions did their jobs well and working conditions improved dramatically.

Then, unions decided that their work was not done. Employers were still sons-of-bitches despite this. While unions changed their foci, they became political action committees. Politicians loved the money they had. Union leadership loved the money they brought in. The mob also loved union money.

Now, most unions are organizations dedicated to their own survival. Look at the infighting with the AFL-CIO that caused a split this year. It all stemmed from a battle in 2003 wherein the union leadership began to focus less on electoral politics and more on reducing central bureaucracy and restructuring unions and locals. the AFL-CIO wanted to return mainly to industrial unions.

So the split happened when four of the big unions, including the Teamsters, pulled out. Temaster head Hoffa said a big reason was the 10 million per year the Teamsters can keep instead of giving to the AFL-CIO (which is an indication of the money these unions pull in). Also, Kerry's loss in 2004 led these unions to thinkign that all the money put into Democratic coffers in 2003-2004 was wasted. The new unions want to put less into politics.

But another relevant factor is this - the AFL-CIO's plan does not include seekign new unions in non-union industries. So these four unions see the opportunity for a lot of money to be made. The AFL-CIO wouldn't go after Wal-Mart, but the UFCW wants those workers.

Why do the unions want the workers? Because those workers all represent union dues to be paid. It was in the interest of economic efficiency to have two big federations each doing their own thing and not stepping on each other's toes.

The environmental movement is the same, bill. Once there's a handle put on global warming, their job won't be done. They'll move on to the next biog thing, i.e, "oversalination of the oceans." Or they'll move their attacks to another industry.

Bill - a closer fit for this analyis is "soldier of fortune." Once the war is over, the soldier of fortune is out of work, right? The soldier of fortune cares not how it makes money - he/she goes where the money is.

These organizations will find something to keep themselves sustained and growing. They are businesses and must either cater to existing markets or create new markets.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

He is not going to like the analogy of the shiftless nature of unions and the shiftless nature of enviromental groups - these are his favored heros.

But I think the analogy is perfect - even better than mercenaries. Mercenaries are individuals, we're talking about giant organized machines looking to get power and all that goes with it.

Even better, both begun with the best intentions, but now?....... Look at the "religion is the source of all troubles" replace 'religion' with 'unions' or 'activist groups' and it still works.

Organized power groups are the source of all major troubles? Centralization is the source,... it's not it, but something in that is getting closer to the truth.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

I like your analogy to religion. Religion is, and has been for centuries, a business based on power and money. Look at the scratch churches bring in. It's mind boggling.

L. Ron Hubbard saw it and said that he'd start a religion someday so he could be wealthy. He did, and Scientology is an extemely powerful and wealthy business. And what's the goal of Scientology? The same as in any religion - bring in more converts! Mre converts means more money and more power. And power is worth just about anything to most.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Believe what we believe, don't ask questions, join us and convert more, then we'll take care of you.

"Welcome to the:

a - DNC
b - Republicans
c - Church of "fillinthe blank"
d - United "fillinthe blank" Unions
e - Dropzone.com
f - university of "fillinthe blank"
g - Chipotle
h - Activist organization of the wacky (left/right)
i - All of the Above

but one could say that politics or religion take the number one and two slots and much of the list above is a subset of either or both.....

Mmmmmmm - absolute power (droooool)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,118]

>He is not going to like the analogy of the shiftless nature of unions
> and the shiftless nature of enviromental groups - these are his
> favored heros.

You know what they say about assumptions. What's my position on unions, exactly?

[billvon 3,118]

>Let's look at labor unions. Labor unions were created to even the
>playing field between workers and employers. Somewhere along the
> way, it was figured out that unions make a helluva lot of money.

Right. They went from organizations protecting workers (which is why workers started supporting them) to organizations with a life of their own. Workers still support them because they believe that their dues will get them better jobs - in other words, those dues are a good investment. Which is debatable, but that's what they believe. That is where their money and their power come from. They will continue to have that money (and that power) for as long as people work for companies, and as long as they have a good story - and there's no sign that either one is going to end.

That means unions are inherently different than political fundraisers or environmental groups pushing for a given result. Unions don't have an endpoint 'built in' to their goals.

>The environmental movement is the same, bill. Once there's a
> handle put on global warming, their job won't be done. They'll
>move on to the next biog thing, i.e, "oversalination of the oceans."
>Or they'll move their attacks to another industry.

I've known a lot of people in the 'environmental movement' as you call it. They are a pretty independent bunch. They squabble all the time over the 'right way' to go about things is - hydrogen cars are great! They suck! No more nukes! More nukes! A work friend of mine just started an organization called EI2025.org, which is a call to end dependence on foreign oil. Another one is the treasurer of Surfrider, which is a surfer coalition to clean up the oceans and beaches. Knowing these people fairly well, they would be quite happy to disband their various organizations if their goals are met. They're goal rather than politically oriented (although they all realize that politics is a tool they have to understand to reach that goal.)

Now, there are a lot of other 'environmental' organizations out there that, I think, just exist to cause trouble and make noise. I put them in quotes because they are no more pro-environment than the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is a democracy. Earth First, for example, is a bunch of thugs, and the few people I've met from that organization put activisim first and planning for the future second.

>Bill - a closer fit for this analyis is "soldier of fortune." Once the war
> is over, the soldier of fortune is out of work, right? The soldier of
> fortune cares not how it makes money - he/she goes where the
> money is.

Being a soldier of fortune is like being an engineer or a laywer. You train to do that job because (presumably) you like it and see a future in it, then you find work. That's a plan for one person, and a common one no matter what your desired field. It doesn't really apply to an organization.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>He is not going to like the analogy of the shiftless nature of unions
> and the shiftless nature of enviromental groups - these are his
> favored heros.

You know what they say about assumptions. What's my position on unions, exactly?

You know what they say about reading the post. I don't know your position on unions - but I think you find them crooked despite original intentions. I have a good idea that you are very favorable to enviromental groups. Thus comparing your pets to something noted as shifty and ruthless is not favorable. Thus you not liking an analogy of something you are favorable to vs something you are not. I think you misread my intent or I wasn't clear enough for you.

Perhaps I should be more specific. I think that you support your pet causes at times to less than reasonable expectations (like a nutjob camped at a ranch in texas). Thus my inference that you would ignore any large group corruption in a pet organization or even concept of an organization along the lines of your pet topics. But this is hyperbole for the sake of just poking fun. We've been antagonistic just lately (a little bit) and it's been fun enough, but not nearly as good as just working details.

kay?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants