Bug in NASA Climate Data?

Hi everyone. This is my first real post on ATS so bear with me please!

So i was looking around the net a bit today and stumbled across something very interesting. here is something that really kind of shocked me. The basic summary is that because of the y2k bug and how a program was written by NASA, their climate data is slightly off. By slightly, we are talking ~1-2% here. But what comes out here drastically changes some things...





here is the official NASA document on the *NEW* updated temperature devations. (they were notified of the problem and actually fixed it! AMAZING!)

Now I'm not up to date on current discussion and rhetoric of global warming, nor do I really know where I stand on the issue, but does this perhaps change anything? Global Warming overstated? I know this is only one piece of the puzzle, but this piece seems smashed up by a rather large sledge hammer. I think global warming is still going to be used to scare the population and for others to pursue motives of their own, regardless of any true environmental problems.

That's about all I got! What do you all think? Thanks for reading, and uh, forgive me if I've done anything wrong lol.

Rizzo

Read the last line from this article on this subject:

Click to Dailytech Article



I guess not only lack of attention from the mainstream media, but also from ATS members.

That could be a good thing; Global Warming is well on its way to being debunked like a sasquatch coming out of a flying saucer carrying a baby chupacabra!

Global warming? Overstated? No, no, it can't be so! Impossible!


Really, no surprise there.

I read about that earlier today from a different site. It makes the data quite different than what was being presented. Also there is speculation that the 2006 number is still incorrect, (inflated x .5). Well worth the read.

the website i posted also has some other interesting things. The author has a little thing called "how not to take the temperature" Its kind of ridiculous how not up to standard some of these official thermometors are. Makes me wonder how inaccurate some of these readings are...




haha that made me laugh out loud. I kind of want Bigfoot to be real though!

But seriously, I hope this global warming scare comes to an end. Yeah its nice to do things better for the environment, and anything that gets us more environmentally focused is good, but the OMG ITS TEH ENDZ OF TEH WORLDDDDS!!!!!!!!!11111!!111!11 Has to stop, and I'm sick of Al Gore milking it like a cow on BGH.

I don't think this data really affects the fact that global temperatures have been increasingly rapidly for the last few decades.

It just shows that the data should be checked properly.

I'm sure that Steve McIntyre is creaming his pants at the moment.

A bit off topic here, but I'd be surprised if you get a lot of response to this thread, although IMO it's a good one.

GW doomsayers just don't like anyone to pee on their fireworks, and this has a bit of that.

Lots of reads, and not many replies would be my guess

Nice post though

LOL.... melatonin had to make such a claim...

There is another little fact that I am going to be posting in a new thread in the Fragile Earth Forum.

BTW, there is also another piece of information which places another dent on the claim of AGW.

Cirrus clouds have been observed to be decreasing, due to warming, leading to a negative feedback, when "all leading climate models" were predicting that warming should be increasing the amount of cirrus clouds. I posted this in the "Breaking News section".

Both these pieces of information tells us that "Global Climate Models", or GCMs, and in general the theories about Global Warming are not infallible, and there is much controversy in the data the GCMs are giving.

Here is the original article.
www.uah.edu...


[edit on 10-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Of course scientific theories are fallible. You'd have to be a fool to think otherwise...

However, much like the other china data business, the adjustment in the US 48 state data has absolutely no effect on the theory. It just moves 1934 from a fraction below 1998, to a fraction above. So, instead of being a fraction above the temperatures that led to the dustbowl in 1934, you are a fraction below it.

However, on the global scale, nothing really changes.

Not surprised you're getting all excited though. Must be great to have something new to blow out of all proportions. And you think climate science overstates its findings, heh.

Do you think Bob Carter will now be telling everyone who will listen that global warming stopped in 1934, instead of 1998?

[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]

Does anyone here think that the crap we are pumping into earth is good?

Whether all of GW is wrong or right. Do you think we are helping ourselves or hurting ourselves. That should be the main point. Go take a little poison everyday for a while, you will get sick. It won't kill you, but it sure as hell isn't good for you. I do not know whether these numbers are bumped or even if GW is being used over aggressively. But I do know that cutting down on emissions cant hurt. I know its not good for us and that's why I decide to help, recycle etc. Not because of the threat of what it WILL do , but the fact that it is bad no matter what way you swing it. If even it just breaks us on oil, it will be a good thing.

ShiftTrio.... CO2 is not a poison.... the Earth, flora, and all living creatures need CO2 on Earth to be able to survive... Without CO2 the Earth would not be what it is today, and the Earth has had up to 12 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere and was much greener....

If you breath water it will kill you too...does that make water a poison?....

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Muaddib]

You know what meant, it easy to twist things. So you are saying its good all the emission's and everything else. You are saying this is good for us? Nothing to do with global warming , or anything else are you saying it good for us?

also is Carbon monoxide not Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Which IS a poison, So are you telling me the below are good for us?

* Hydrocarbons react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight and elevated temperatures to form ground-level ozone. It can cause eye irritation, coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath and can lead to permanent lung damage.
* Nitrogen oxides (NOx) also contribute to the formation of ozone and contribute to the formation of acid rain and to water quality problems.
* Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, deadly gas. It reduces the flow of oxygen in the bloodstream and can impair mental functions and visual perception. In urban areas, motor vehicles are responsible for as much as 90 percent of carbon monoxide in the air.

Oh boy...yes it is very easy to twist things....more so when you are presented with data which brings doubts to your faith....

Yes, when goods are more expensive because we're "cutting down on emissions", and poor people have to choose between them or starving, yeah, I think they do hurt.

In fact, if you count the economic damage that is done if the government forces it, the decrease in jobs and salaries can be the difference between whether some people get to eat dinner. Or get to live.

The economy is no joke. Don't pretend that it is. We need to be smart with what we do with waste products so no one is harmed, but going nuts over silly theories (see: man-caused global warming, far from proven, no matter how you look at it) is not the way.

I am not sure what you mean by hurt poor people, I think the concept of green energy would help, its the corporation that turn it into a profit center. Sure we will go greem but your gonna have to pay, they do it with healthy foods to, it sucks, doesnt mean I am going to add to the problem.

As I stated, I do not know if the rhetoric about GW is right or wrong, I just know if I can do a little bit about its a good thing. Its the people who deny these things are bad that have a problem IMHO. Sure don't go so crazy, but recycle, don't driver a hummer to drop your kid off at school, crap like that just be plain ole responsible. Remember when GE didnt think dumping toxins in the hudson river was bad, now they have a billion dollar clean up and dredging of the river to do. And guess who suffers the people who live there. The cancer % that is SKKY HIGH in those areas.

I say if you can, dont add to the problem.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by ShiftTrio]

I completely agree with ShiftTrio here. I wasn't trying to start a flame war anyway, but these threads kinda seem to turn into that. I was just trying to point something out. Personally, I believe global warming is real, but overstated. The reasons I dont like the "science" of global warming is because people lie to us to push their own agenda's, and to me, that's a problem. Stuff like this might make some people stop running around like chickens with their heads cut off yelling about Global Warming. But on the flip side, this can casue people to care less...

I am not surprised of your reaction neither, like always you try to dismiss facts that refute your faith.

Mann, Jones, Wang et al were good teachers to you huh?....

[edit on 11-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Didn't dismiss any facts, difficult to do so when I get involved in certain types of discussions...