×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New NASA Data Casts Doubt On Global Warming Models

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the but-scientists-love-models dept.

NASA 954

bonch writes "Satellite data from NASA covering 2000 through 2011 cast doubt on current computer models predicting global warming, according to a new study. The data shows that much less heat is retained by carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere than is assumed in current models. 'There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,' said Dr. Roy Spencer, a co-author of the study and research scientist at the University of Alabama." Note: the press release about the study is somewhat less over the top.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

954 comments

It's all a lie! (4, Funny)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915358)

This is just a plot by Bush Cheney & Big Oil to destroy the world!! Now hurry up with the organic hempseed paint so I can finish my sign protesting Nuclear power plants and solar power plants that despoil Nature's beauty and wind turbines that spoil the views of multimillionares in Nantucket!! We won't save the world until China produces everything because there's no pollution in China!

Re:It's all a lie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915434)

Lmao, give it a rest man.

Re:It's all a lie! (-1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915652)

This is just a plot by Bush Cheney & Big Oil to destroy the world!! Now hurry up with the organic hempseed paint so I can finish my sign protesting Nuclear power plants and solar power plants that despoil Nature's beauty and wind turbines that spoil the views of multimillionares in Nantucket!! We won't save the world until China produces everything because there's no pollution in China!

I agree it's all a lie, but for a different reason. There is no NASA anymore with the ending of manned space flight.

It's now the National Aeronautics and Space Simulator agency (N-ASS).

In keeping with their new Presidential directive to participate in Muslim outreach, I understand that they've been tasked with producing the next-gen MechWarrior simulator game, all in Farsi. The "battlemechs" all wear burkhas and have no weapons systems....they just explode with a cellphone call.

It's OK to laugh. Really.

Strat

Follow the data! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915378)

We should follow wherever the data leads. That's science. Up till now, the data has suggested that global warming is very real.

Re:Follow the data! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915508)

No it didn't. Computer models suggested that global warming was very real.

And the climate record, etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915690)

but you wouldn't want the facts to get in the way now, would you?

Re:Follow the data! (2)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915714)

Up till now, the data has suggested that global warming is very real.

Not the data. The models.

-jcr

Re:Follow the data! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915830)

No, the data. You can debate *why* it's warming - whether it's caused by man or is part of some unknown natural cycle - but you can't credibly argue that it isn't happening.

Re:Follow the data! (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915746)

No it didn't. If you look at a very limited portion of the data (ie the time since the last ice age) do you see only the warming trend. If you look at ALL the data (like the Vostok ice core), like you should, then you'd know that sea level has been higher than today, the planet has been hotter than today, and that these cyclical trends are normal for our planet. But looking only at the subset of the data that supports your hypothesis and ignoring the rest is not science at all.

Oh well (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915380)

I'm glad for these kind of alarmist views spurring people to save energy, think cleaner and take responsibility ("carbon footprint" lol).

Re:Oh well (0)

howardd21 (1001567) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915634)

I am also glad for christians telling us God will judge the sinful, so at least maybe my neighbor won't steal my stuff, kill my servants, or covet my wife.

Re:Oh well (1)

hansraj (458504) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915716)

Climate change - real or not - is a global issue, not just one relevant to US. Europeans are not as obsessed with god and religion as americans are; Muslims don't follow the ten commandments; and the rest of the world is too busy making more money.

Dr. Roy Spencer... (1, Informative)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915382)

...is a proponent of intelligent design and rejects evolution.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/ [uncommondescent.com]

nuff said

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915584)

So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?

Someone can give all the contrary (and unliked) opinions they want on subjects they have no credential or authority in. Hell, we do it all the time on ./

OTOH, the man had to have posted his hypotheses and proofs somewhere... why not attack those, instead of attacking him?

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (2, Insightful)

nefus (952656) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915688)

So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?

Someone can give all the contrary (and unliked) opinions they want on subjects they have no credential or authority in. Hell, we do it all the time on ./

OTOH, the man had to have posted his hypotheses and proofs somewhere... why not attack those, instead of attacking him?

I agree with you, the several postings criticizing him about intelligent design is like saying you can't agree with his opinions on good muffins because he eats steaks too.

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (5, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915740)

I don't have the scientific background to assess his work on climate change.

But I do have the scientific background to assess his work on evolution, and from that I know he is some combination of a) a really crappy scientist, and/or b) someone willing to lie/misrepresent science to further their own beliefs.

Either criteria gives me ample reason to doubt any article he's published. If some qualified and credible scientists investigate and vouch for his paper than I may be willing to give it a second thought. But until then I'm not going to take the word of a known quack just because I'm not trained to disprove his particular brand of quackery.

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915772)

Easy!
Anyone who can abandon logic and believe in fairies, pixies, intelligent design etc. on faith cannot be trusted in matters of judgement.

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915786)

No but the fact that the guy is finding data consistent with his predefined outcomes pretty much means he's a scientist who doesn't follow the scientific method. I thin that makes a lot of his claims of being a climate scientist suspect. Also I may not be a climate scientist, but care to explain why ice melt is increasing when we should be heading into an ice age? Or why during solar minimum global temps rose, when they should decline? Also he cherry picks data, while surface temps haven't increased, the cold water currents have increased in temp leading to an explosion in algae blooms and jellyfish population. In short you literally have to ignore the preponderance of evidence to support any position that does not include a warming of the planet. The ocean currents are eventually going to slow to a crawl causing massive death of ocean wildlife, a huge producer of oxygen.Global warming isn't about saving the planet, it's about saving humans.

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915794)

Because ID is one of the few concepts being presented as science that is not and can never fall under science. Furthermore, every single proponent of ID is either ignorant of the facts they are advancing, or actively lying about them.

It calls into question his credibility, which means that I will not read his claims carefully and check all his footnotes. Instead, I'll wait for someone more serious to "blow a gaping hole" into global warming models.

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915826)

it casts doubt on his credentials as any kind of scientist.

i've never seen so many non-sequitirs. the man is clearly incapable of reasoning in a way that can be followed by another.

it seems generous to think that while his views on evolution are quite flaky, his climate science should be spot on.

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (1)

pcraven (191172) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915592)

The "alarmist" wording of this article blows a "gaping hole" in the credibility of this paper. It is "extremely important" when trying to teach people something new that your article not be so "dramatically" worded. Glad it linked to the actual publication, but I didn't see anything here to make me think that the Earth isn't warming.

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915598)

How do these guys get the platform to spout off on this shit?

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (5, Informative)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915668)

The author of this fine piece is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute [wikipedia.org], a libertarian think tank that seems to think global warming is some sort of fairy tale. This is the same group that worked with Phillip Morris to deny the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. It would be fantastic for Forbes, Yahoo!, or maybe even Timothy make some effort to mention that this is essentially an OpEd posing as a news report. Instead we get this bullshit that's going to pull in the teenage libertarian "See global warming is made up!" short bus riders.

Slashdot: News for nerds, some of our editors are actually retarded.

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915708)

You think a personal attack is "nuff" to refute a scientific argument supported by measurements with the best and most relevant technology humanity currently has to actually _measure_ the related natural phenomena instead of engaging in numeric manipulations that cannot be falsified in a generation's lifetime?

For your information, Dr. Spencer has no lack of peer recognition and awards for his professional contributions. He also has medals from NASA.

You may imagine your attitude to be a product of "progress", but in fact you just exhibited the staple of religious dogmatic mindset.

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915804)

that article made me quite mad.

it boils down to two points, really.

1. the fossil record does not show [citation needed] transitional forms that bridge the large gaps between different species.

2. physics can't explain where the big bang came from.

big fucking whoops. adding God doesn't add anything useful. we're still where we were as far as explaining things, but now we have this God thing as well.

Ideology aside, Occam's Razor should shut this guy up. he's proposing a needlessly complicated model that explains precisely nothing more than the current dogma does. so why introduce something that draws the same conclusions but lacks rigour and elegance? why attempt to fix a theory that isn't broken by adding a God that appears to do nothing to supplement the theory except that "oh, God did it. i wont give a mechanism for it, or cite any evidence. but God did it. just look at the evidence!"

Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915810)

No that is most certainly not 'nuff said'
please tell me what is wrong with his research on the topic at hand if anything...

"Alarmist Computer Models" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915392)

No bias showing, no sir..

hmm (0, Flamebait)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915398)

Actually climatological modellers, the only people who can really speak authoritatively on the subject have been conflicted for a while. That's actually the best argument against global warming, but most deniers are so mindnumbingly stupid they miss that. Based on what I've read on the subject I am unconvinced of warming; but the risk is sufficiently high that the relatively low costs and side benefits of moving to alternative fuels and capping emissions is worth it.

Re:hmm (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915512)

I thought the evidence was pretty clear that global temperatures are already rising significantly. This only seems to affect predictive models - global warming may not continue to increase as much as we previously thought, although temperatures are already pretty elevated.

Re:hmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915612)

You're just imagining things. It's fucking cold out here in Seattle today, so where's the god damned global warming? IDIOT.

Re:hmm (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915816)

You call 23C (74F) cold? Yeah, for summer that's peculiarly low, but I wouldn't call that "cold", much less "fucking cold".

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915546)

relatively low costs....cough......just ask the coal power generation industry and their customers.
NO ONE has adequately explained if any of this BS is worth it.

Re:hmm (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915580)

Why should they be conflicted?

http://www.wmich.edu/corekids/Climate-Change.htm [wmich.edu]

Any child in the audience for that webpage can take one look at the graph of temperature vs. CO2 and tell how well-correlated they are.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp [koshland-s...museum.org]

The same child can tell from this graph that CO2 began rising sharply at the beginning of the 1900s and was followed by a very well-correlated rise in temperature.

These aren't models, they're data. If modellers have any problems, it's with their ability to create a mathematical theory to predict temperature from CO2. The Earth does a rather fantastic job of it experimentally, and a non-formulaic, table-driven, statistical method of predicting temperature from CO2 falls out of the data. Using that, plus the rather easy deduction that fossil-fuel consumption created the rise in CO2 over the past century, anyone with any idea what science actually is can tell you that if we don't start to turn that curve flat or down, the temperature will continue to rise along with the CO2.

No conflict there at all, except one manufactured by an industry that pays scientists to pretend they're telling the truth when in fact they're working for the industry.

Re:hmm (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915694)

I'm not looking at your data, just need to say that correlation does not mean causation.

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915760)

I'm pretty sure lies, damn lies, and statistics applies here.

You can take any set of data and make a graph to support your side. /I'm not a denier, but I sure get treated like one.

Re:hmm (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915660)

This is NOT an argument against Global Warming. Global Warming is happening, which most intelligent people agree on.

This data is stating (something a lot of people also agree on) that Carbon Dioxide is not the only problem. It is a big part of the problem, sure, but not the only thing causing Global Warming.

Carbon Dioxide is being demonized as the primary source by people like:
  * Al Gore (as he is making billions after investing in anti-CO2 technologies), and
  * Politicians (as it is easy to quantify, and therefore tax CO2 producers)

Before 'An Inconvenient Truth' came out people considered many pollutants to be causing Global Warming, but now people (sheople) think that if they reduce their 'Carbon Footprint' (thanks for that phrase Al Gore) then they've done their part, while they are still living their daily lives causing damage to the planet in a myriad of other ways.

Re:hmm (3, Interesting)

inviolet (797804) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915686)

Actually climatological modellers, the only people who can really speak authoritatively on the subject have been conflicted for a while. That's actually the best argument against global warming, but most deniers are so mindnumbingly stupid they miss that. Based on what I've read on the subject I am unconvinced of warming; but the risk is sufficiently high that the relatively low costs and side benefits of moving to alternative fuels and capping emissions is worth it.

The cost of capping carbon emissions is 'low' relative to what? You understand that carbon emissions are involved in EVERY act of production and distribution in the world. Just building a system to assess the appropriate fees is a huge expensive undertaking... and the frictional costs (it will surely be like a VAT)... and the fact that when everything is more expensive to make and use, we will make and use less of everything... and the corruption and distortions of giving regulators a new stranglehold on all economic activity... and the fact that alternative fuels are all much more expensive than the traditional choices*. THIS is what you call "relatively low cost"?!

I am not making any statement here about the reality of AGW. We ordinary citizens can't know that, at least not yet... but we already do know what is necessarily involved in a planetwide carbon tax. Your state is just epically wrong, so much so that I think you are practicing deception with an agenda.

*Yes yes I know about oil wars. I also know about wars over the next set of choke points: selenium, lithium, uranium, cadmium, etc.

I certainly hope that's the case... (1)

cplusplus (782679) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915418)

...because we've increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over 37% in the last 100 years. That's a substantial amount, so if it has less of an impact, we're all better off. That said, this should not be used as an excused to maintain the unmaintainable status quo.

Substantial Increase but... (1)

twrake (168507) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915738)

Of course 37% is a big increase and CO2 and climate may be sensitive to small amount of CO2 but, CO2 is still less than 0.1% by vol (more like 0.04%) so who is being alarmist the big 37% increase or the small 0.04% by vol.

It is just how the numbers are presented and to who but that are political arguments and not scientific ones .... so never mind ... who cares when stuff matters.

Here's to hoping Climatologists are dead wrong. (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915420)

I really wish the people at the Heartland Institute are right. I really do. I'd hate to witness major migrations because farming conditions dramatically change across the globe. But I also really, really wish they'd drop the sensational language (alarmist models, etc), because I'd able to actually take them seriously. Not to mention that I also would like to see them actually properly quote the papers they reference. For example, the abstract in this particular paper is actually far less strong than what the venerable James Taylor says.

Abstract:
"The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains
the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is
largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and
likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While
the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that
atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in
satellite radiative budget observations. "

James Taylor: "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"

Go fuck yourself with a chainsaw, James Taylor.

Re:Here's to hoping Climatologists are dead wrong. (1, Insightful)

IICV (652597) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915656)

Exactly!

The NASA data says our models are wrong. Big fucking deal. We know that!

What this data doesn't change is the more important graph, this one [wikipedia.org] right here. This is the graph that says "We're screwed"; we use models to calculate the magnitude of the screwedness. If it turns out we're not that screwed, then great! We should still make changes, but we've got time to do it in. If it turns out that we are screwed, then we need to speed it up.

Fundamentally, models predict the future. We know about AGW because of data that has been gathered in the present, about the past. Yes, the models are imperfect and incorrect, but that doesn't change the solid foundation of data that AGW rests on - and hey, as this article shows, we're continually improving the models too.

Re:Here's to hoping Climatologists are dead wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915766)

You mean the one that uses a bias (thumb-rule modifier) to implement an increase starting in 1950?

Re:Here's to hoping Climatologists are dead wrong. (0)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915790)

I've read a great deal on climate change aka global warming and not once have I ever seen humidity and cirrus clouds mentioned as part of it until this guy claimed it was the foundation of it.

Radiation absorbed by new CO2 released into the atmosphere from fossil fuels is the cause, anything else is a red herring distraction, which is what this Tea Party type guy is all about.

Peer review (2)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915428)

I'll wait for some peer review to decide whether this guy is on to something or whether his findings are nothing but hot air (pun intended).

Re:Peer review (0)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915522)

Ummm The paper WAS peer reviewed.

Oh, I'm sorry I forgot. This is /. Naturally, you didn't RTFA.

Re:Peer review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915594)

I think the commenter meant by someone he would consider peers, not the creationists affiliated with the Heartland Institute.

How did this anti-science crap end up on slashdot? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915430)

A few notes about TFA:
1) The data comes from satellites put into space by NASA, but NASA is in no way involved in this study.
2) If this study actually significantly contradicts our knowledge of global heating, why has it been published in Remote Sensing, and not a more reputable journal?
3) They only interviewed the guy from the University of Alabama who lead the study
4) The author works for The Heartland Institute
5) They seem to have replaced the words "accurate" and "accepted by the scientific community" with "alarmist"
6) Source on UN's involvement? Seems like they threw that one in just to go for the "UN = bad" reaction that a lot of people have

Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915432)

If you have the capability of spewing 20tons of waste vs. 40tons of waste (for the same real product output), you should pick the 20ton option -- I believe all true engineers would.

Unfortunately capitalism is rarely ever aligned with "optimization" but rather "viral growth" instead (with the _hope_ that people become informed enough to actual change the growth pattern)... However, engineers also know that _hope_ is not a viable strategy so other options must be used.

Alarmist marklar! (3, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915438)

Alarmist marklar!

Alarmist alarmist alarmist alarmist, marklar alarmist alarmist alarmist.

Marklar.

Creationist are not qualified to be scientists (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915458)

Dr Roy Spencer is a creationist. A proponent of intelligent design.

His work has been largely criticized in the peer review literature.

Re:Creationist are not qualified to be scientists (5, Insightful)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915758)

So? Did anyone check his facts? Is he right? I'm so sick of ad hominem attacks from people who can't even write coherent sentences...

Alarmist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915460)

What's the deal with repeating the word "alarmist"?

Was the site hacked or something?

Author is a little biased (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915464)

TFA author: "James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News."

The Heart Land Institute (http://www.heartland.org/about/) mission:

"Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies." ...not to mention using "alarmist" thirteen times in the article

Re:Author is a little biased (5, Insightful)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915576)

In other words, bullshit from a libertarian think-tank. Par for the course.

Beware the source (1, Informative)

red_dragon (1761) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915472)

FTA:

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Re. Heartland:

About us:
Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.

In other words, Heartland is a mouthpiece for the Tea Party.

Re:Beware the source (0, Troll)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915736)

Cool! So, just like the Tea Party is wrong, and the trillion of new debt spent on "stimulus" was actually very effective, and that the key to economic growth actually is to hugely increase deficit spending and to raise the rate at which we tax the economy, then this guy will also be wrong, and NASA's data will show the exact opposite of what he says it does. Because that's just how it must be.

the actual paper (3, Informative)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915478)

The guy who wrote this article is a little biased. The original paper is available online for those who want to see what it really has to say.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf [mdpi.com]

Re:the actual paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915706)

The actual paper is a joke of science. The guy looks selectively at 2000-2010 data and says there is less warming. No shit!! There is a reason why REAL SCIENTISTS average data over 10 years to counter short cycle oscillations like El Ninio and La Ninia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation [wikipedia.org]

So read and learn how pseudo-scientists use known phenomenon and use it to skew their own results.

It's like reading Greenpeace paper about 1 million Chernobyl deaths. It is quite disgusting how far some will pervert science to "prove" their predetermined viewpoint. Like Roman Catholic church vs. Copernicus/Galileo/science but 500 years later.

There should be a black list of "scientists" that are banned from even attempting to publish any future findings based on their past intentional misleading "data analysis".

Could they have used the word "alarmist" more? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915482)

I haven't looked at the study, which while in a journal about remote sending not climatology that requires the paper's authors to pay for publication does sound reasonable enough from the blurb.

But the continued labelling of what is the mainsteam of climatology as "alarmist" seriously detracts from that article.

It's the sort of argument a 5 year old makes, which doesn't make the actual claims incorrect just much more difficult to see...

Sponsored by The Heartland Institute. (1)

DallasMay (1330587) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915502)

"James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute" Oh. Yeah, I figured something like that was coming.

Re:Sponsored by The Heartland Institute. (1)

websinthe (2176708) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915562)

I saw that too, turns out they're committed to "free-market solutions to social and economic problems." This'd be nice if it were true, but this kind of thing comes out once every month or two, and usually from places like this.

Re:Sponsored by The Heartland Institute. (1)

DallasMay (1330587) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915650)

Be sure to check out their other hit articles including: "Second Hand Smoke: Science Says It's Healthy So Blow Some My Way" and "Freedom of Education: Science Says Your Sixth Grader Should Get a Job and Stop Leaching Off the System."

Dr. Lindzen told us this two years ago (1)

Verity_Crux (523278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915514)

Dr. Lindzen of MIT showed through his research of thirty years that carbon dioxide does not retain heat. That report was published two years ago. The idea that carbon dioxide is evil is published and promoted only by those who stand to gain from such lies. Breath the free air, people.

Alarmis[tm] is used 18 times in the article (1)

dzelenka (630044) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915530)

It felt like the word "alarmist" was being pounded into my skull.

How does the new data compare to non-alarmist computer models?

Even if Global Warming didn't exist (1)

maweki (999634) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915536)

we made a brighter future for our children. That alone should be reason enough to fight for renewable energy sources and a world without nuclear reactors.
I mean, c'mon.

What a Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915542)

As has been beaten to death in other quarters, the real climate is a system of interlocking relationships that is still too complicated for us to get our tiny minds around. We seem to be very good at simplistic bombast and concepts that at their root devolve to 'how can I use this issue to make money...'. Yes, we need to be aware that climate is changing, whether we did it or some other factors came into play. No matter how much we rant and rave the glaciers keep on melting, the sea keeps rising, some areas dry out to the point that they no longer support society as we like to know it. Not burning coal and oil is good because there is a limited supply and we need it for chemical feedstocks. Air pollution is bad, not so much because we are cruding up the planet (although that is happening) but because we breath it... and so forth. And any time some loon gets the idea that we could 'fix' it all by building a gigantic parasol in space or seeding the oceans with megatons of iron, I want to hide at least untill the shakes ease off. There are things that we may glimpse about the world around us, but because we glimpse these relationships does not mean we have God-like powers over them. I, for one, will maintain a state of humble wonder at the world around us.

Why is this not surprising? (2)

Froeschle (943753) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915544)

"The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 391 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011.." https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere [wikimedia.org] So does that mean that CO2 is .03% of our atmosphere (That is clost to 4 one-hundredths of one percent.)? While I agree that we should not be dumping crap into the atmosphere I still don't see how "doubling" this particular gas over the medium o long term should have any real noticeable effect on our climate.

Re:Why is this not surprising? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915754)

True, let's add double the amount of salt to all out recipes from now on. It's usually only a teaspoon anyways, right?

Again? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915548)

This isn't news; the satellite data frequently fail to show the warming trends observed at surface locations. Then someone just recalibrates the satellite data, and everything matches up just fine.

Re:Again? (1)

Brainman Khan (1330847) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915696)

I dont know all the facts about global warming, climate models, etc. but if we recalibrate multi million dollar closely monitored satellite data to match poorly maintained and reported ground based systems something seems a little off.

And who has been wrong? (2)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915776)

Certain denialist-friendly scientists from Alabama (Christie & Spencer) put out results which appeared to "deny" the mainstream results, claiming that the mismatch indicated that the ground measurements were contaminated by "heat islands".

The scientifically honest community found the problem, it was an error in processing the satellite calibration (orbital parameters), once corrected, the satellite data matched the ground data (which was not especially contaminated, this effect is well known and calibrated by normal scientists).

The same 3 or 4 denialist friendly scientists get more press than the thousands of anonymous and honest scientists whose results in aggregate fully support the fact of significant increase in greenhouse warming from human modification of the atmosphere.

Timothy strikes again! (5, Insightful)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915554)

Look more noise from Dr. Roy Spencer [climatecrocks.com] intelligent design proponent global warming denier. I would feel guilty if I was using this person's history on the subject and ignore the science but it looks again like he's ignoring the science to push an agenda. Who gave us this wonderful article? Why our own timothy, Slashdot's barely literate "editor". We need to buy him more paste to eat so he'll stop posting this bullshit.

Yeah, of course (1)

Sean (422) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915558)

Big surprise, computer models that can't predict the weather accurately 2 weeks into the future fail to accurately predict global temperatures years out.

Can we just forget about this global warming nonsense and focus on better managing all of the pollution we create? If we can figure out how to produce all the material goods that make life comfortable without also producing vast tailing ponds of filth and huge clouds of toxic smoke the world will be a better place.

Lesson? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915560)

Life is not binary (either on or off, either 1 or 0, or "You're with us or against us) It is shades of grey. People in the know and have some kind of personal gain involved in this (A.G.) have ram rodded this concept down the collective's throat. Not far off from religious fananticism either if you think about it.

"Alarmist" press article (4, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915582)

Anyone who is inclined to give a lot of weight to this "alarmist" press release should first read this [realclimate.org], on a previous paper from Roy Spencer. Note this

what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you’d think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.

Now, also read the paper [mdpi.com], and note this

It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.

Hmm, doesn't sound like the press release or the Forbes article much, does it ?

Use the above and your judgement to figure out just how much weight to give the above.

Happening slower than expected = still happening. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915586)

Let's be sure to point this out to our less factually inclined friends.

Climatologists have always published error bars (1, Troll)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915604)

Is there anything whatever here to indicate that CO2 sensitivity is outside the (wide) range that climate scientists have been working with?

Oh, and research the Heartland Institute before deciding whether their interpretation of the paper is the most reliable one. It's also interesting to read about Roy Spencer.

Would be good news but entirely too convenient (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915630)

This requires very careful analysis. The timing is dubious. The finding is dubious. And a lot of money and power is riding on finding something like this.

However if it pans out (which I doubt) it would be good news.

Heartland Institute - Incredible Source (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915666)

The Heartland Institute? Slashdot is now publishing articles from the libertarian Heartland Institute? Or, this just a leak in from your sister website: SlashFox.com?

Oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915672)

Is that why 1/3, that's (one third) of the ice down yonder Antarctica way is gone in just 50 years? Does that mean we can increase the carbon footprint and just go on as if nothing's wrong? Thankfully Exxon is on top of it. Thanks for that disinformation, sounds great!

Alamaby, how I love ya (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915692)

The original article has nothing in it to match the claims from that "Dr." from Alabama.

Alabama: thats the state where any change is not possible, the world was created in a static state for us to rape via God, right?

So wait... (0)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915698)

>Forbes
>Heartland institute

I thought according to the Tea Party and the Republicans that NASA was a waste of money and that whatever sats we launch are because it's part of the Government's evil plan to take away of all our rights... ... except when it's not.

I'm going to take the Heartland Institute, TeaTards, Right Wing Pundits of all stripes, together in the name of fairness with Greenpeace (because they haven't been relevant since France stopped nuke testing), and the "Living on Earth" staff from PRI (because they really make me cringe with their unscientific bunk, bad interviews, and fad hopping), tie them together to an old anchor, and push them off the Verrazano bridge. I'll make sure to do an Environmental Impact Statement, first, just to keep things on the up-and-up.

A pox on many houses.

--
BMO

Nice job, douchebag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36915710)

Note: the press release about the study is somewhat less over the top.

So why did you post the inflammatory summary, you useless shitbag posing as an editor? Did the creationists promise you hookers and blow?

Which explains why Greenland is melting (2)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915768)

It must be the heat from the armies of the Dark Lord Sauron building their underground weapons factories.

Pay no attention to the droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and scorching summers the agency that couldn't plan a new heavy lift rocket program says everything is hinky dinky.

And yet, the neo-cons try to kill earth science (2)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915824)

It is strange that neo-cons are desperate to kill R&D on this, when in reality, most of the climatologist would love to DISPROVE GW. The reason is that they would be a HUGE name .

You owe me (0)

amightywind (691887) | more than 2 years ago | (#36915836)

I have been saying for years that global warming hysterics are a fraud, and the leftist political cabal that aligned with them. No surprises here. I am owed for hundreds of down mods.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...