Slashdot Mirror
Blogger Finds Bug in NASA Global Warming Study?
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.
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.
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.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
There, fixed that for you.
Blaa Blaa Blaa there is no global warming. Al Gore just needs a job...
Let me quote from the article here: NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. And let's google "hottest year on record" and quote some of the "trumpetting media": The WMO says that 2005 is currently the second warmest year on record, after 1998. Averaged separately for both hemispheres, 2005 surface temperatures for the northern hemisphere (0.65 C above 30-year mean) are likely to be the warmest and for the southern hemisphere (0.32 C above 30-year mean), the fourth warmest in the instrumental record from 1861 to the present. WMO is, of course, the World Meteorological Organization which looks at global temperatures, for which the US is just one single data point which was incorrect by 0.01 in 1998. That totally changes everything!!!
Whether or not a person believes in Intelligent Design doesn't affect whether he/she is a real biologist or not
Yes it does. He might be a biologist by profession but when arguing about Intelligent Design he is doing Theology or at best Philosophy and as such do not speak as a biologist, but as a (hobby) philosopher or theologist. Remember biology is a natural science, biological research must be scientific, and ID is by nature no longer scientific.
For that, take a look at the IPCC report, which has been reviewed by thousands of scientists all over the world over many years.
Sorry no. WHen you ask for billions of dollars the PROOF is on you, and it hasn't been proved at all. 1. Proof that man is causing *A significant amount* of global warming. My body heat contributes, the question is *how much*. So far no falsifiable evidence there. 2. Proof that the doomsday preachers *know what the temperature should be*. So what if the temp raises 1 degree in the next 100 years? Prove to me its as damaging as dropping our economy in the toilet. You DO realize we didn't even use fossil fuels in any great means 100 years ago? What makes you so sure we won't have something better? 3. Proof that your 'plans' like Kyoto will make any significant impact at all. Look at question #1. If man only contributes 5% then there is certainly no point in working for Al Gore & Co. So far the only answers from the green-nuts on these issues is 'consensus' WHICH ISN'T SCIENCE. Remember these are the same fools who warned of an growing Ozone hole(which didn't exist) and a coming ICE age during the 70s. For such a science only crowd, so many in here don't ask for many when its time to jump on the 'LOOK AT ME' bandwagon and pretend they are saving the world. Laugh.
If we are experiencing a global warming trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions, the 80s (and 70s, and 60s, and 50s, and 40s) should have been hotter than the 30s. They weren't. How do you explain this anomaly?
Could it be that something else we can't measure or control is impacting our global temperatures, possibly MORE than greenhouse gases? If so, isn't this data contaminated?
And shouldn't we be trying to figure out what it is, so we can determine whether we really have a problem, or at least, whether we can solve it?
Mods: Do you disagree with me? Go ahead and mod me down. Meta-mods will sort it out. Good luck!
Are you responses always so garbled or is it because you are worked up that anyone might question the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. I write from Toronto that 10,000 years ago was under a kilometre of ice. Evidence suggests it melted in about 2,500 years. Pretty fast for a kilometre of ice. I guess it was those first nations, crossing over Beringia, that caused the problem with their stone age SUVs. Surely you don't just blindly trust 'experts' - in about 1974 the 'Club of Rome' report done by the leading experts of the time report predicted catastrophic societal collapse well before the turn of the century. They were wrong. Paul Erhlich, the foremost population scientist of the 60s and 70s, predicted in the "Population Bomb' book, population collapse before the turn of the century. Another expert wrong. Maybe you've got to live a bit longer to discover experts and their models are often no better at predicting outcomes than the man in the street, or worse, a simple coin flip.
"I know you're right, and I can't refute you."
Seriously, you'd have to be mentally retarded to post what you did.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.