Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Blogger Finds Bug in NASA Global Warming Study?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-such-a-good-thing dept.

NASA 755

An anonymous reader writes "According to an article at DailyTech, a blogger has discovered a Y2K bug in a NASA climate study by the same writer who accused the Bush administration of trying to censor him on the issue of global warming. The authors have acknowledged the problem and released corrected data. Now the study shows the warmest year on record for the contiguous 48 states as being 1934, not 1998 as previously reported in the media. In fact, the corrected study shows that half of the 10 warmest years on record occurred before World War II." The article's assertion that there's a propaganda machine working on behalf of global warming theorists is outside the bounds of the data, which I think is interesting to note.

cancel ×

755 comments

Well, well, well.. (5, Informative)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184005)

The opinion: A link to the blog entry in question [norcalblogs.com] would have been quite on topic.

The pun [youtube.com] .

Re:Well, well, well.. (4, Insightful)

dj_tla (1048764) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184505)

Thanks for the link to the blog article. It's a lot more interesting and substantial than the somewhat embarassing DailyTech article.

A lot of people have been criticizing the DailyTech article for the line "Then again-- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media." It should be noted that the original blog entry [norcalblogs.com] does not contain this or other indications of paranoia, and attributes the people involved in the discovery.

so.. (0, Flamebait)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184031)

I've lost count... is this report now politically acceptable to the Bush administration or not?

What's their current line?

Re:so.. (0, Offtopic)

eboluuuh (1139173) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184113)

"Computer viruses are well-known to corrupt data in a file; especially after you remove them."

WTH? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184499)

I've lost count... is this report now politically acceptable to the Bush administration or not?
Why was that marked Flambait???? Seems someone is running around using up mod points marking things that disagree with or don't like as Flaimbait. WTH?

Y2k? (5, Funny)

Major Blud (789630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184037)

What software were they using that wouldn't be Y2k compliant? Graph generators from the late 70's?

Re:Y2k? (4, Funny)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184069)

Dude, it's NASA. They have to test their computers for space-proofness, radiation-proofness, and drunk user-proofness. Obviously those tests take time, 50 years in this case...what? You didn't think those old Analog computers used around the end of WWII were just thrown out right?

Re:Y2k? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184265)

d00d. star wars is for fags.

Re:Y2k? (2, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184129)

This is the same NASA that would not fly the shuttle over the new year [theregister.co.uk] .

US vs World (5, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184045)

I looked quickly at the numbers. This impacts U.S. air surface temperatures, not global. It almost seems like the U.S. is experiencing a somewhat lesser global warming effect than the rest of the world. Is this possibly due to the post-industrialized economy and tighter environmental regulations? This would mean we are still being impacted by global warming, but it is being countered by less heat-trapping smog and other pollutants?

Re:US vs World (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184107)

This impacts U.S. air surface temperatures, not global. It almost seems like the U.S. is experiencing a somewhat lesser global warming effect than the rest of the world. Is this possibly due to the post-industrialized economy and tighter environmental regulations?

Or is it because the US is surrounded by very large bodies of waters on two of its sides which help to isolate it to a certain degree? (no pun intended)

Re:US vs World (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184145)

So does Africa. And Australia. And South America. And with the air flow patterns, Europe should be as well.

Re:US vs World (2, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184477)

Or is it because the US has well-developed, long-established "heat islands" of large cities, where much of the developing world is doing just that...developing...large cities...even as we speak.

1934 warm in Europe also (4, Informative)

SleptThroughClass (1127287) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184193)

Re:1934 warm in Europe also (1)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184555)

For those of us born in Europe, our parents recall massive DROUGHTS during the 1930 to 1935 (especially in 1933) period. Interesting coincidence?

Re:US vs World (0, Flamebait)

DriveDog (822962) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184335)

It's due to being in denial.

Hume's Maxim (-1, Flamebait)

sg3000 (87992) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184053)

Some skepticism is needed here. This reminds me of Hume's Maxim

> The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our
> attention) that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless
> the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more
> miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish

In other words, some random blogger claiming that climatologists have been using screwed up figures about global warming due to a "year 2000" bug is pretty miraculous. I find it more believable that there's more to the story here than what's being posted. I read some of the logic chopping in the blog post's comments, but I didn't see any climatologists speaking there. Just some random people who seemed like they were playing detective.

I'd like to see some additional corroboration on this. The Bush Administration has had no problems in skewing information to match their political agenda, and clearly discounting the science around climate change is part of that agenda. One article sitting on some blogger's site isn't enough to convince me. Moreover, I immediately discount any statement that contains:

> I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the
> mainstream media.

What is that supposed to mean? It sounds like an appeal to a conspiracy theory. The fact is the mainstream media has been biased towards the Bush administration and Republicans in general for at least the past 10 years. For example, the New York Times trumpeted the Bush administration claims about Iraq nonstop until we went to war. All the major newspapers reported every unsubstantiated accusation against Clinton when he was in office, but they quickly lose interest in all the far more serious Bush scandals. And closer to this subject, this same press will give as much time to people who promote Biblical Creationism and "Intelligent Design" as they will to real biologists who are doing science.

So if this isn't reported in the mainstream press, or better yet in a science journal, it's because whatever the blogger is stating isn't what it sounds like.

Re:Hume's Maxim (5, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184187)

In other words, some random blogger claiming that climatologists have been using screwed up figures about global warming due to a "year 2000" bug is pretty miraculous. I find it more believable that there's more to the story here than what's being posted. I read some of the logic chopping in the blog post's comments, but I didn't see any climatologists speaking there. Just some random people who seemed like they were playing detective.

I'd like to see some additional corroboration on this.


RTFA. There is a link to NASA posting the new numbers. Need more corroboration?

Not a very random blogger (5, Informative)

SleptThroughClass (1127287) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184249)

If you didn't find enough info in that article, try the links here [slashdot.org] .

It wasn't a random blogger, it was Steve McIntyre, a statistician whose attention was drawn to an oddity in the data for an official temperature station next to some air conditioners.

Re:Hume's Maxim (-1, Flamebait)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184285)

"What is that supposed to mean? It sounds like an appeal to a conspiracy theory. The fact is the mainstream media has been biased towards the Bush administration and Republicans in general for at least the past 10 years. For example, the New York Times trumpeted the Bush administration claims about Iraq nonstop until we went to war. All the major newspapers reported every unsubstantiated accusation against Clinton when he was in office, but they quickly lose interest in all the far more serious Bush scandals." What have you been smoking? That's why we never heard anything about Bush's supposedly being AWOL from the Air National Guard. And when Clinton was in office there was all that news about Hilary's cattle futures or the Whitewater scandal. I am sorry, but every Bush "scandal" (some of them deserve to be called scandals, some don't) is in the press for weeks or months. Most of the Clinton "scandals" (same reason for the quotes) got a day or two of coverage, if that.

Re:Hume's Maxim (2, Insightful)

Andrew Nagy (985144) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184299)

And closer to this subject, this same press will give as much time to people who promote Biblical Creationism and "Intelligent Design" as they will to real biologists who are doing science.

If you disagree with "Intelligent Design," that's fine. But can you refrain from making side jabs at those who study it by saying that "real biologists" don't believe it? One of the biggest misnomers is that intelligent design even precludes evolution... it doesn't. It simply ascribes a source. You can bash whatever line of it you want, but please don't make blanket assumptions and emotive appeals.

I can't wait to get modded into oblivion on this one.

Ahem? (-1, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184319)

I'd like to see some additional corroboration on this. The Bush Administration has had no problems in skewing information to match their political agenda, and clearly discounting the science around climate change is part of that agenda. One article sitting on some blogger's site isn't enough to convince me. Moreover, I immediately discount any statement that contains:

Oh good lord. Look at you. The fact is, the entire environmental movement is part of an overall socialist agenda to try and deindustrialize western nations so that the third world can be "equal". You guys on the left have your zealots too. Why else would the first world have to pay the third world for the "right to pollute". The whole argument is absurd.

Re:Hume's Maxim (2, Informative)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184341)

I'd like to see some additional corroboration on this.

Uh, NASA admitted to the error and corrected the data in question, producing the exact same data set as the investigator. How much more corroboration do you need? It's in the article, if you took the time to read it.

I read some of the logic chopping in the blog post's comments, but I didn't see any climatologists speaking there.

Wait... you skipped the article, and read the *comments*? Sheesh.

Re:Hume's Maxim (4, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184357)

Some skepticism is needed here.

Um... Isn't that what this article is?

Re:Hume's Maxim (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184605)

Can you not read? NASA has looked at it and immediately adjusted their figures crediting this "blog poster" guy with the find? That's in the fucking article nimrod. Why the hell you get modded up for a first grade reading level is beyond me. Here is the link you numbskull http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt [nasa.gov]
notice it comes from nasa? How about read first, comment later, huh?

Personally, I think climate change is real, quite real, unmistakably so, but not to the man-made extent that they want us to completely alter our economies, that to me looks like the more serious political agenda. I think we need to reduce air pollution for obvious health reasons, and we need to develop alternative transportation fuels and means of electrical production to get away from the asshole ripoff price gouging energy cartels (yes, even the holy nuclear power energy assholes, they price gouge as well), but as to the climate change, it's way more the sun and other cycles right now. The cyclical nature appears to be much higher than these academic goofballs want to admit,. and YES, the scare mongers have an agenda, two of them, and it is easy to see, like in the news biz, if it bleeds it leads. Sensationalism sells. Scary predictions lead to more cash grants to keep studying it, and there is a real political faction inside the "scientific community" that seeks to use man made global climate change theory to push for a global government system and NEW FUCKING TAXES. The goofball paid off scientists on the far right want to keep exxon rolling in the dough and keep their military adventures going-lot of money in weapons research, who cares about slow brown folks anyway, that's their viewpoint, and, the goofball scientists on the far left want some sort of weird global socialist system with "carbon credits" and new taxes and so forth and a lot more layers of bureaucracy. I say bah and a hearty double fuck you to both those extreme points of view, and say kudos to the guy who found the y2k data bug that should have been fixed years ago. Garbage in-garbage out! Now I am wondering how many other climate models have been run using those erroneous figures and data sets? How about that huge UN study?

Nope, this story has legs. It's OK to be skeptical, but these are some simple facts, the bug appears to be real, and nasa are some serious jerks for having closed source software in the first place. Anything being done with tax money needs to be open source, or we get problems, blackbox voting software to skewed climate data. Open it up! Stop the coverups, whether the coverups are malicious or just to keep from getting embarrassed over shoddy work.

Very biased article (5, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184057)

The last couple of paragraphs of the article:

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again-- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
(emphasis mine)

Seriously, this data may be very interesting and correct some of our possible misconceptions about the severity of global warming, but come on. The last part of his blog basically makes him sound like a standard zealot conspiracy theorist with an axe to grind. How does that sort of nonsense advance the debate at all?

Re:Very biased article (4, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184275)

Numbers used in the debate about global warming were never questioned. The person who put together the algorithm never made the workings of the algorithm public (why not?). Yet there was no questioning the numbers.

Someone goes to the trouble of reverse engineering the algorithm, and finds a pretty obvious error. Yet you are picking on one sentence? Sheesh. I'd think you'd be jumping on the closed-sourced original scientist instead.

Re:Very biased article (2, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184437)

I made no comment on the data other than that it might be interesting. I was pointing out that that sort of commentary is unhelpful because it makes the poster look like a crank. Other people more interested in getting bogged down once again in this endless debate can argue about the merits of the findings.

Re:Very biased article (5, Interesting)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184501)

Worst than that -- he had to reverse engineer the data, since "Mr. Bush Is Keeping Me Down" would not release the original data .

Re:Very biased article (3, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184301)

The original investigation and corrected data should have been linked, not that blog entry (which just reports it.)

In any case, the point is that NASAs data was wrong, and they have admitted to that and corrected it. (In some places; if you read the comments of the linked article, you can see that NASA still has some pages with the old data in it. Probably not maliciously, though, just an oversight.)

War of words. (0, Offtopic)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184059)

The whole debate is just confusing. You have "scientists" who claim this and that, and try to debunk each others findings. While I tried to keep a mental record of it, it's just pointless.

For those of you who wonder if it's real don't listen to the news or read the papers, look outside. I live about an hour from the Canadian border so it gets pretty cold up here. This past winter we didnt get any snow till February. In fact, I saw a groundhog out on Jan 1st. Trees and shrubs in my yard were starting to to bud in early January.

While I'm not that old (under 30), when I was young I remember having a white christmas almost every year, and it started snowing in November and lasted till late Feb or March. Now we might get 1-2 snow storms a year and they tend to be small.

If this isn't global warming, I don't care. But it is messed up, and I find it hard to believe it isn't our fault.

Re:War of words. (1, Interesting)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184139)

Well that's certainly interesting for you. I've been looking at our weather down near the Mexican border and we've had it pretty cool. Our winter was about average, cooler than last year, and our summer has (so far) not even come close to the records. Last year was a hot year for us, I think we almost broke the no-rain record (or did break) and came close to setting a new high for a certain day but this year has been pretty cool.

From what I've seen the weather's fine, and if it is getting warmer I find it hard to believe it could possibly be our fault, I don't think we're anywhere near that advanced.

Re:War of words. (0, Troll)

choongiri (840652) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184369)

I don't think we're anywhere near advanced enough to put our short-term self-serving interests aside and actually deal with this problem.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:War of words. (1)

dm0527 (975468) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184549)

Because we all know that the governments and corporations that will make billions if not trillions off of "fixing" global warming are of course not self-serving and have "our" short-term interests at heart...

Please...stop this nonsense about fixing global warming and stopping the impending doom and spend the billions on fixing actual problems we have NOW, like world hunger and the poor state of medical care. Absolutely shameful farce...

Re:War of words. (4, Insightful)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184433)

"but this year has been pretty cool."
Global warming is just that - GLOBAL
You are making the common mistake of confusing weather with climate.

Re:War of words. (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184195)

meanwhile I live in Canada, and the last few winters have been colder and harsher than any I can remember... if anything it seems we are having more extreme weather all around, hotter summers, colder winters, rainier springs and drier summers...

I'm not sure if where I live is on average warmer or colder than years gone by, but there is one thing I'm sure of, looking at any one small area is basically meaningless on the global scale.

Re:War of words. (1)

putch (469506) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184371)

i dont actually have anything to say here. im just posting to undo my accidental moderation of you as redundant. i was going for insightful. whoops.

That's why it's not called "Global Warming" anymor (1, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184395)

.. because people were confusing it. It's called "Climate Change". The havoc we're causing on the atmosphere does not make it uniformly warmer - rather it gets way hotter than average in some areas and way colder than average in others... it just ON THE WHOLE WORLDWIDE is hotter on average.

The huge fluctuations in temperature differential are the main causes of the ever increasing stomr activity in the Atlantic and Pacific.

Anecdotal crap! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184307)

Hey, guess what?

Living in Pennsylvania, this year, I had over a foot of snow in my yard.

In the middle of April.

April.

That's not right! We need to do bad things to the environment, before we're all victims of global cooling!

Re:War of words. (1)

pete.com (741064) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184315)

I grew up in upstate NY very near Canada too. I recall in 1976 we had a very warm winter and a green Christmas. I also recall years where it snowed in October, and years there was snow on the ground in late April. 30 years isn't a very long time to judge climate change, especially when you use something as subjective as memory for your measurement record.

Re:War of words. (2, Insightful)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184317)

If this isn't global warming, I don't care.

That isn't global warming, that's a single data point.

That sound you hear is every scientist repeatedly banging their head against a brick wall.

Re:War of words. (1)

stevenvi (779021) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184337)

Where are you living? I was in South Dakota and we had snow on the ground almost the entire time from mid-October to April, including some pretty bad storms when I was supposed to be flying out for a vacation in March. The weather fluctuates, these things happen. When I was a kid I was taught this in school. Now they're teaching that only increases are happening... and I don't understand it. For the record, I'm a mathematician, so I'm not entirely clueless about science. That said, I have not looked at the data for global temperatures.

Re:War of words. (4, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184347)

Anecdotal evidence is hardly an appropriate substitute for reliable, reproducable scientific analysis.

Unless, that is, you've already made up your mind on the subject, in which case anything that supports your view will suffice as "proof".

Re:War of words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184471)

I agree with you. I grew up in far west Texas. My parents have lived there since the 1930s. We were chatting last year about how the winters have become more mild and shorter there in west texas and the summers hotter than usual. My parents remember going to fiestas for 16th of September(Mexican independence day) in our small town and having to wear jackets. Now they first cold spell does not happen until November. In addition, we talked about the intensity of the summer and the length of it. Growing up, they do not remember such extreme summers. They also said that occasionally we get some cool days in the summer and some really cold days in the winter. But, overall things have changed in their eyes. They also remember the orchards that used to cover the lands. Now, trees have a hard time surviving with the drier hotter climate.

Now, my parents are old, and are from another era. If I tried to talk to them about "global warming", they would have no clue about what that is. All they know, is that the climate is changing.

I think that we should explore the wisdom of those that observe the subtle things in this world, without the politicians, in their ivory towers, trying to mold peoples thoughts one way or another. I wonder if the elder Native Americans have seen these changes, and if so, what they think.

Re:War of words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184537)

For those of you who wonder if it's real don't listen to the news or read the papers, look outside. I live about an 10 minutes from the Georgia border so it gets pretty hot down here. This past spring it frosted hard in late April. This killed the buds on my Mamosa tree and it didn't recover enough to put out flowers until July.

While I'm not that young (over 20), it snowed here last year enough so that the kids could go out and play, and when I was younger I remember that that never happened.

If this isn't global cooling, I don't care. But it is messed up, and I find it hard to believe it isn't our fault.

Re:War of words. (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184597)

I gotta better idea. Learn! You can't go espousing the validity of data then base your whole acceptance of global warming on the fact that its warmer for you this year. For all the debate on the issue most scientists would agree that trying to make an assertion based on one year of data would be idiotic.

I live in Colorado... (1)

TheJerg (1052952) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184609)

...and we almost broke our snowfall records for the year last winter.

oh lord (-1, Troll)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184065)

This is like throwing a slight flaw in the theory of evolution to a "young earther"
The global warming deniers are going to take this and rant on it endlessly.

Re:oh lord (4, Insightful)

GammaKitsune (826576) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184191)

Now really, that's taking it a bit far. I'm strongly opposed to young earth people, and what they claim is far and away more extreme than global warming deniers, who usually suggest something to the tune of natural climate cycles.

Re:oh lord (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184453)

And the climate-change doomsayers will deride it as (another) Bush snow-job. Wake me up when the cycle changes.

Re:oh lord (2, Interesting)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184533)

The tornado in Brooklyn on Wed. wasn't enough of a wake up call?

US Data only (0, Troll)

tarumaasu (633334) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184067)

Note: This is for US data only and the overall global warming trend is largely unaffected. So yes the world really is warming up and yes NASA really does suck. The US data in general should probably be ignored as the sensor network is poorly maintained and the sensor locations are very poorly planned.

Re:US Data only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184293)

...The US data in general should probably be ignored...

In other words, lets disregard any data that does not fit our current belief system/political agenda.

Re:US Data only (1)

32Na (894547) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184327)

I don't think we should be ignoring data from US meteorological stations: it does give us a very detailed look at climate over one large region of the globe for much of the past century, and we certainly need all the data available to understand global warming. Ice core samples can give us an idea of the atmospheric carbon levels going back many hundreds of thousands of years, and archaeology can give us some idea of corresponding temperature... but according to the theory of global warming, the planet has *recently* started to dramatically change, so we need as much data as possible for this time period.

Re:US Data only (1, Flamebait)

Arathon (1002016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184517)

Oh come ON. Were people like you (please, forgive the generalization, but I can't come up with a better way to put it) saying this when the NASA study came out originally? The bias you're exhibiting is much too obvious to be confused with rational, scientific thought, and it isn't helping anyone's 'cause', just or unjust.

Also, and this is a general complaint, but...unfounded statements like "the sensor network is poorly maintained" do NOT (EVER) qualify as "Informative", unless backed up by some actual reference material. They just aren't, and it's ridiculous that there is that much blind trust here that unsupported assertions like this one get quickly accepted and praised. =P

Don't panic: global warming is still a reality (1)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184085)

I hope people won't use this opportunity to dismiss global warming as a whole. There are numerous global warming studies and this "bugged" one is only one of them. Of course, no model is perfect, they're models! But I consider global warming a scientific fact nonetheless.

Re:Don't panic: global warming is still a reality (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184333)

I don't need this to dismiss that human activity has any effect on "global warming". That is a myth and this just proves it more. The fact the "global warming" in a natural phenomenon and that we do not have the power of God to make that kind of change to this planet has still not been debunked by any of the "sky is falling" "global warming" scaremongers.

Re:Don't panic: global warming is still a reality (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184389)

Thanks for proving my point from a few messages up. By the way...how do you keep the sand out of your nose?

Re:Don't panic: global warming is still a reality (0, Troll)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184359)

I suggest you Google for "The Great Global Warming Conspiracy", a documentary wherein you will discover that:

1. Climate change is more than likely a solar phenomenon which *causes* more carbon to be released into the atmosphere

2. In "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore frigged his graph figures by about 60 years.

I'm not denying that the climate is changing but the fact is that man being the cause of that is *NOT* proven in any way - plus it's a geological fact that the Earth has been through at least four previous Ice Ages (="climate changes") long before man could have had any influence.

Woah (2, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184569)

But I consider global warming a scientific fact nonetheless.

Evolution and the big bang are still considered theories, Newton's law of gravity, over 300 years old is still considered a theory, and you are telling me you consider global warming, which just cropped up over the last 10-20 years, is 'scientific fact'? Get out of here.

I felt a great disturbance in environmentalism (5, Funny)

GammaKitsune (826576) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184087)

As if millions of voices suddenly cried out "oops" and were suddenly silenced.

But what's the consensus (5, Funny)

huckamania (533052) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184099)

Who cares what this data says, don't we already have consensus on this?

9 out of 10 scientists say the hottest decade was the 1990s, how dare anyone suggest otherwise?

Zogby should poll all of the scientists in the world and figure out what is going on.

Re:But what's the consensus (1, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184391)

Think of the scientists! Without Global Warming, they would have nothing to bleat about.

Re:But what's the consensus (0, Flamebait)

IckySplat (218140) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184469)

Some things to remember guys...

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

It's a pity that the politicians decided to take an interest in science.
As they've waded into the debate, good scientists have felt pressured
into arguing with them. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind every one of...
"Never argue with an idiot. They will will just drag you down to their level,
then beat you with experience"

As for global warming, even if the experts are right (and I think they may well be)
There is fuckall we can do about it. The basic problem is too many people who
want the little luxuries of life, good food, water an SUV and 10 kids.
Earths population is now what 6billion. I can remember as a kid when it was only 3.5billion
In 20-30 years it will be 12+ billion. Assuming widespread disease, starvation etc doesn't bring
these number down a little.

Lets face fact. Were done for. I strongly suggest investing in Tinned food and a shotgun.
If they're right it might just save your life.
If they're wrong, you still have some tinned food and a shotgun :)
Buying land thats 100meters at least above sea level and a rowboat might also be a good idea.

So long and thanks for all the fish :)

Cool! (4, Funny)

cigarky (89075) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184105)

Now we can drive bigger cars and oil will never run out! :0

US centric (5, Informative)

ianare (1132971) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184115)

from TFA

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)

Re:US centric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184373)

The old numbers are cached here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vskwzroreeQJ: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt+http:/ /data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt&hl=en &ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us [64.233.167.104]

and the new numbers are here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt [nasa.gov]

The difference looks more like 18% to me.

It goes from .8 to .66 C for the most recent 5 year period.

Global warming (1)

AkumaReloaded (1139807) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184121)

Bush/republicans: "Well well, I told you guys those damn liberals with their anti-American good for nature and mother earth crap where lying their god hating asses off."

However, it is interesting to note that such a bug would cause a very different outcome of the same study facts. I wonder how many other bugs might be out there. Still I am and we should not be immediately convinced that the Global warming threat is over. We should not step back into our SUV's for that one mile to the gym. It's gym for g's sake, take the walk and consider it a warming up.

end rant.

this is good. (3, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184123)

This proves that science works. It doesn't "disprove" (global warming). What it does is gives us more refined data, and a clearer understanding of the climate.

Obviously, dumping billions of tons of Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere is not a good idea, period. However, this refined data shows the warming trend in a more accurate light, and that is all to the good.

I see this as (yet another) great victory of the scientific method, and in this case, aided by a sharp-eyed blogger. The beauty and strength of scientific truth lies in its "weakness": its provisionality - things are only true until proven otherwise.

This is very good news.

RS

Re:this is good. (5, Insightful)

kad77 (805601) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184251)

Um, yeah. Hansen from NASA refused to release the algorithms he used, funded by public money.

The blogger reversed engineered them from the data. Hardly the open scientific process you are ascribing to it.

Also, NASA has very quietly updated the numbers, replacing the old ones without reference. No transparency there.

Try again, pollyanna.

Re:this is good. (2, Insightful)

samschof (928254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184281)

It is good news, but it shows the value of opening up scientific research. NASA has not disclosed the statistical correction algorithms (or source code) which they use to correct the raw data. Had they opened the source code or at least published, in detail, the algorithms used with the raw data, than the problem would have likely been caught much earlier.

 

Re:this is good. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184353)

This proves that science works.
Errr, kind of. According to the article, the dudes at NASA would not release their temperature analysis source code on request, so some guy, working on his own, had to reverse-engineer it to find the so-called Y2K bug. If the science was really working, there would be full disclosure all around with complete disclosure of the data and source code used to decypher it. Until that happens, who knows what has gone into the prior art.

FOIA? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184567)

I wonder if such things are obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act? I know that *some* scientific datd is exempt..

Amusing (1)

GoodbyeBlueSky1 (176887) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184135)

But I still don't think looking at the "warmest days" (probably statistical noise) really says much about global warming. The blogger (and maybe some of those railing against global warming, to be fair) can't see the ol' forest for the pines.

I think the conclusion says all you need to know about this "story":

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
Then again-- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.

Global warming not disproven (0)

jihadist (1088389) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184149)

A real scientist looks at all the factors, where a hack looks at just one.

Today, the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area broke the record for the lowest recorded ice area in recorded history. The new record came a full month before the historic summer minimum typically occurs.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ [uiuc.edu]

Ice is melting, coral is vanishing, temperatures are erratic, and so one NASA study means nothing. You can't take nourishment from a system for centuries, grow your population a millionfold, and dump toxins back into it without replenishing it and NOT have some effect. Give me a break!

Bogus weather stations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184183)

There are some hilarious pictures of where the weather stations are located.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/ [norcalblogs.com]

I'd like to see the corresponding pictures from stations in other locations before I concluded that the weather in the US is different from the rest of the world.

Clearly these stations were set up for for routine weather reporting, not highly speculative climate forecasts decades into the future.

There are so many sites now documentating the flaws in the climte studies.
Take a look here for a start:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/09/bombshell-na sa-revises-recent-us-temperatures-downward-after-y 2k-bug-fix/ [hotair.com]

Re:Bogus weather stations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184393)

I don't get it, what's wrong with measuring temperatures on asphalt, after all, it's not like the asphalt doesn't exist and we're not covering huge chunks of land with the stuff. Is the problem that all those air conditioners are raising the temperature of the air? Perhaps we should measure that.

Won't change anything at all.... (3, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184209)

....both sides have established a religious level of conviction of their position, and no compromise is possible or desired. Certainly intelligent discussion, moderate debate, and consensus are discouraged if not actually torpedoed by zealots of the Left and Right extremes.

Pretty much like every serious issue in American politics.

Smelly the irony (1)

snowwrestler (896305) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184225)

TFA notes that Anthony Watts has posted about it on his site [norcalblogs.com] . You might know Watts as the head of the surfacestations.org [surfacestations.org] project, which contends that the surface warming trend recorded in the U.S. is the result of various data collection problems like the urban heat island effect. But now it looks like that warming trend was overstated--weakening the very purpose of the surfacestations project. Somehow I bet Anthony doesn't see it that way though.

Dammit, typo (1)

snowwrestler (896305) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184287)

That should read "Smell the iron".

No, wait--"Smell the irony". That's it, I'm sure of it this time.

No, we aren't biased... (1, Insightful)

gillbates (106458) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184235)

Interestingly, if you look at the parent directory of the referenced "corrected" data, you get a much different picture [nasa.gov] .

Sure, the blogger did find a Y2K anomaly, but this doesn't discredit global warming the least; it just shows that the US isn't warming quite like the rest of the world.

Predictably... (1)

alexj33 (968322) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184241)

I can hear the predictable unending cries now.....

"But.... but..... manmade global warming must be happening! We can't let those nasty facts get in our way, boy! After all, we've got Al Gore's worldview to prop up!"

Quit trying to Confuse me with Facts (3, Insightful)

gadlaw (562280) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184243)

I've been told in no uncertain terms that I must BELIEVE in global warming and that man has caused it. Many of the Brethren have warned the unbelievers that they face arrest, scorn and treatment as if they were traitors, holocaust deniers and altogether evil less than human creatures that must be silenced at all costs. By presenting the other side of the argument, (which by the way, according to the Brethren there is no other side of the argument) these people are giving comfort to the enemy. If there are facts which cause doubt about the truth of global warming then those facts must be suppressed. It is for the good of all. Oh, and it's all George Bush's fault I've been told. And America's fault.

Re:Quit trying to Confuse me with Facts (0, Redundant)

hashmap (613482) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184345)

I too have been told in no uncertain terms that I must BELIEVE in global warming and that man has caused it. Many of the Brethren have warned the unbelievers that they face arrest, scorn and treatment as if they were traitors, holocaust deniers and altogether evil less than human creatures that must be silenced at all costs. By presenting the other side of the argument, (which by the way, according to the Brethren there is no other side of the argument) these people are giving comfort to the enemy. If there are facts which cause doubt about the truth of global warming then those facts must be suppressed. It is for the good of all. Oh, and it's all George Bush's fault I've been told. And America's fault.

not such a good thing department? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184259)

Why is this from the not-such-a-good-thing department? Correcting bad data should always be a good thing. Or is it a bad thing because it provides an example of how little the data have actually been critically considered by the academic scientific community? I predict that as it takes longer for action on global warming, many more alarmist talking points and predictions will be invalidated.

Earth first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184261)

We can strip-mine the other planets later!

Rule of Slashdot (1, Funny)

alexj33 (968322) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184329)

The article's assertion that there's a propaganda machine working on behalf of global warming theorists is outside the bounds of the data, which I think is interesting to note.

The rule of law here is:

1. If manmade global warming naysayers are at fault, it's a conspiracy. Root them out!

2. If manmade global warming proponents are at fault, then it's all an honest misunderstanding. Watch "Inconvenient Truth" again. Repeat.

Does this mean global warming is over? (0)

mr_java66 (1079393) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184365)

Will we be able to recover the freedoms taken away from us under the guise of protecting us from global warming now?

Still PRO-global warming in the snow belt in indiana :)

Re:Does this mean global warming is over? (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184425)

What part of Indiana?

Im in them dere hills of brown co. I used to be in Columbus, with DSL... ;(

Breaking News - Czech President is a Genius (1)

deweycheetham (1124655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184367)

So what now, Vaclav Klaus the President of the Czech Republic is a Genius (Czech President Calls Man-Made Global Warming a Myth, Questions Al Gore's Sanity see link at http://newsbusters.org/node/10773 [newsbusters.org] ).

Is anyone else questioning the Political Positions on Global Warming? This kind of stuff make Rush Limba look like a biblical prophet.

Good News About Globa Warming... (2, Funny)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184405)

...if we all burn, then Microsoft burns too!

New meaning for NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184411)

Need another statistical analysis

Well done... (5, Interesting)

StressGuy (472374) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184447)

First off, kudos for actually referencing the claims made, this is a critical and often overlooked step when dealing with such a contraversial issue. It won't stop people from arguing the point mind you, but it does give the less lazy among us an opportunity to at least validate the claims made.

Without a doubt, you've made a compelling case.

Now, allow me to make some suggestions:

Try to avoid statements designed to "stir the pot" such as "quietly released". I know it's a tempting expression to use and just about everyone does it. However, it carries with it the implication of NASA being forced to release the data but not wanting it to be noticed. If that was the case, then make the case, don't just make suggestive statements... Speak Plainly . It will give integrity to your report rather than make you look biased, thus giving ammunition to the opposing side. Remember, NASA is not required to make a fanfare, they just need to correct their data.

Also, your data stands on it's own merits, there is no need for you to make assumptions on how it will be received by the "Global Warming Propaganda Machine" or whomever. Again, it makes you look like your just trying to pick a fight and it diminishes the effectiveness of your report.

Now, I'm only taking the time to write this because I think your presentation is one of the better ones I've seen. It does not "debunk" global warming (particularly the "global" part if I understand the data I've looked at so far), but you make a great case for critical evaluation of the data and peer review of conclusions.

Regardless of who's side you're on, that's all any rationale person should want.

This sentence is an assertion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20184493)

It's kind of annoying how this article's title ends in a question mark? I think that the editor should be responsible for establishing the veracity of the story? He certainly shouldn't be asking us?

they dont have a clue (3, Interesting)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184519)

2006 will be a bad year for hurricanes... didnt happen
2007 will be a bad year for hurricanes... hasnt happened
yet they are predicting thet the effects of global warming will start to take effect in 2009?
once they start getting the local weather 2 days out correct on a consistant basis THEN I will start to believe their long term forcasts

Whatever (0, Troll)

Trub68 (1140871) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184523)

Blaa Blaa Blaa there is no global warming. Al Gore just needs a job...

who gives a fuck about global warming (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184543)

Does it really matter if we have global warming or not? we still have to shift from using fossel fules because someday fairly soon there going to run out and were all going to be left looking like overpopulated third world countries.

I do give a fuck about global warming, but for all those nay sayers you still have to tell me what your going to do when the fossel fules run out.

Global warming doesn't only cause rises (1)

PJ1216 (1063738) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184551)

I think the problem with trying to confirm or deny global warming is that global warming can throw climates completely out of whack. it can cause temperature drops in some areas and rises in others. i don't think relying on temperature data alone can help. moreover, changing climates in one area can have more changes around it. its such a complex relationship that it makes it so difficult to study. A rise or a drop in temperature can technically still mean global warming exists. You can't look at the average temperature across the globe because global warming can actually cancel out its own affects over time. you can't look at an isolated spot because it will be affected by other factors that you will be completely ignoring. So, honestly, I don't think either side can use this information as any more than circumstantial evidence.

Look at the BIG PICTURE (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184587)

Look at the BIG PICTURE:

There are hundreds to thousands of scientists writing hundreds to thousands of studies based on several million observations.

Now here comes along ONE yahoo who supposedly points out ONE alleged flaw.

Ergo we can draw the conclusion that global warming isn't happening. ?

Go buy yourself a sense of proportion.

We'll hear a lot of these statements coming up... (3, Funny)

rd (30144) | more than 6 years ago | (#20184599)

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up."
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...