Scientists find errors in global warming data

Well aint that great ¬¬

www.usatoday.com...
"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. [California], 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."

So, it seems that there were errors in the temperature reports
Does this mean that all the worries of '' oh! dear! the earth is getting hotter each year! in 20 years we're gonna die!'' things are just all not true?
Or was it just a very little miscalculation wich will have just a tiny winy effect on the global warming issues we have today? in other words, will it all just be like it was before the errors were discovered, but just with little differences?
Quite interesting, but i don't know what to make of it
I think things aren't exactly like we think they are I knew it!
Any suggestions?


- MB


(mod edit to add link to source)

[edit on 15-4-2006 by pantha]

this is the age of panic.. deal with it, or loose yer mind. simple as that.

Originally posted by phiniks
this is the age of panic.. deal with it, or loose yer mind. simple as that.

Agreed, It's true that its the age of panic
but, Why should i lose my mind? it's never to late to stop all the problems

Then again, the group was being funded by the Petroleum industry so you never know. I think they like to keep us confused.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Then again, the group was being funded by the Petroleum industry so you never know. I think they like to keep us confused.

Hm... maybe, i'm not sure
It DOES sound a little ''fake'' but think of it, a math error
Everybody makes mistakes éh? especially in maths ¬¬
I'll ''investigate'' this a little more...

- MB

I think if you look at the big picture here, a satalite collecting data from space is basicly the last thing we need to look at to see proof of global warming.

Weather patterns absolutly crazy... droughts everywhere but at the same time floods all over the place.
Sea levels rising.
Polar Ice caps almost non existent.
Migrration patterns of animals all whacked out,,,,.....
And all the while cancer from u.v rays which are also slowly baking us all!!

Originally posted by Apoplexy123
Weather patterns absolutly crazy... droughts everywhere but at the same time floods all over the place.
Sea levels rising.
Polar Ice caps almost non existent.
Migrration patterns of animals all whacked out,,,,.....
And all the while cancer from u.v rays which are also slowly baking us all!!

Indeed that is true
Okay... i don't know what to say anymore , only that
I hate it when i can't comment alot on something..

This article is "funny."

To be clear the findings in this article are from climate expert Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California who is not affiliated with the petroleum industry.

But at the end of the article...

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.

But Mark Herlong and the George C. Marshall Institute have nothing to do with this.
It is in fact irrelevant to the rest of the story so right away this looks like spin.

But why would they need to do that when a few paragraphs up...

"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.

John Christy is affiliated with the petroleum industry. He is a member of The Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and theIndependent Institute.
But the article makes no mention of that...

It seems like the article was written so that it would have the appearance of spin in some sort of discrediting strategy.
Why would they bring up the George C. Marshall Institute and say that they are financed by the petroleum industry when they have nothing to do with the article. Meanwhile they have a quote from John Christy and say nothing?

Well, Now that you're saying it...
I'm kinda surprised. by the things you said...
I'm gonna search it up a little more, If its true, They just want to confuse us..
Well, Thanks for the info dude !


- MB

The mainstream media has not been doing that great a job of covering Climate Change and Global Warming. Pretty much every article the MSM publishes on these issues need to be dissected.
A while back I made a thread all about GW skeptic groups that are funded by the petroleum industry.

The reading material is dry but you may want to check it out.

Backgrounds of Scientists and Organizations Who are Skeptic of Global Warming

Originally posted by meridian_blood_29387423
Does this mean that all the worries of '' oh! dear! the earth is getting hotter each year! in 20 years we're gonna die!'' things are just all not true?

The warming trend is real and observed through mutliple types of stations. Also, notice:

Essentially, the satellites [error lead] to a false cooling trend.

Meaning its been getting warmer than the sat data showed. It was sort of measuring night time temperatures and reporting them as daytime.

thepieman
Then again, the group was being funded by the Petroleum industry

The people doing this research have nothing to do with the petroleum industry.

At the bottom of the article it notes:

Mark Herlong of the George C. Marshall Institute declined to comment.

And that that group is a petro-group, but they had nothing to do with the research.

Originally posted by Umbrax
The mainstream media has not been doing that great a job of covering Climate Change and Global Warming. Pretty much every article the MSM publishes on these issues need to be dissected.
A while back I made a thread all about GW skeptic groups that are funded by the petroleum industry.

The reading material is dry but you may want to check it out.

Backgrounds of Scientists and Organizations Who are Skeptic of Global Warming

Indeed, this is quite interesting, Thanks!
I'll search up some more about this... there is indeed something not so, so... true
Thanks again


- MB

Originally posted by Apoplexy123

Polar Ice caps almost non existent.

I wouldn't say the South Polar Ice Cap is non-existent. It's melting at an accelerated pace, to be sure, but it's definitely still there.

Migrration patterns of animals all whacked out,,,,.....

In most cases this is due to the encroachment of humans. Are you speaking of the polar bears? If that's the case, it's still human encroachment via global warming.

Polar Bears are, however, dying out. Predictions are that they'll be extinct in 100 years. I'm not sure it has anything to do with migration, but rather, the disappearing arctic ice.

Originally posted by Jadette

Polar Bears are, however, dying out. Predictions are that they'll be extinct in 100 years. I'm not sure it has anything to do with migration, but rather, the disappearing arctic ice.

Their numbers are dwindling, yes, but it's due to the shrinking of the North Polar ice cap. In the winter they depend upon it to expand their hunting grounds. As each year passes, the cap becomes smaller and smaller, reducing their hunting area.

They're competing with each other in a reduced area. Naturally, their numbers will drop due to increased competition for food.

To me, the article seems to state that by recording lower temperatures, they were trying to prove the world wasn't heating up. By coming out and saying their numbers were false, aren't they implying now that it will?
They take the stance that the earth is warming very slowly and the impact is minimal, but is this just downplaying the global impact now that there are more studies coming proving we are heating up? ....gotta love the oil

btw...they gave polar bears 25 years now

Originally posted by poolboy
that by recording lower temperatures, they were trying to prove the world wasn't heating up.

No. There was an error in the satellite data, they didn't purposely have them fabricate data. The error showed less of a warming trend than there really was.

We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place

A new article in Science by researchers Carl Mears and Frank Wentz from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) identified a problem with how the satellites drifted over time, so that a slight but spurious cooling trend was introduced into the data.

However, the Remote Sensing Systems team has made some additional adjustments, such that their global trend is 0.193 degrees per decade. Christy and Spencer disagree with those additional RSS adjustments, but acknowledge that it's an open scientific question which team is correct. If RSS is right, a straight-line extrapolation of future temperature trends implies that global average temperatures in 2100 will be about 2.0 degrees centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than they are today—more than double the original Christy and Spencer trend. The RSS trend is more in accord with the higher projections of future temperature increases generated by climate computer models.

Just to clarify the error RSS found means the earth is warming faster than what was previously believed by Christy and Spencer. If in doubt, fall back on temps from ground data and Vostok ice cores.

Here's a more current article, than the 8-11-05 article posted above:
Could Global Warming Be Worse Than You Think? April 15, 2006

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by meridian_blood_29387423

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."

So, it seems that there were errors in the temperature reports
Does this mean that all the worries of '' oh! dear! the earth is getting hotter each year! in 20 years we're gonna die!'' things are just all not true?

If you read the paragraph carefully, it says that one group of satellites (not the only ones monitoring global warming) were showing that the Earth is COOLER and was NOT getting warmer rapidly.

The changed data means that yes, it's real and that we need to do something other thanstand around and panic.