Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Key claim against global warming evaporates; Satellite, balloon data based on faulty analyses
MSNBC LiveScience ^ | August 12, 2005 | Ker Than

Posted on 08/12/2005 8:20:24 AM PDT by cogitator

For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.

...

Argument evaporates

According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: atmosphere; ballooons; change; climate; globalwarminghoax; junkscience; models; msu; normalearthchanges; radiosondes; satellites; trends; troposphere; warming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
For those interested, RealClimate has two extended pieces on this today, with considerably more detail about what was done. The piece about the radisondes is entitled "The tropical lapse rate quandary" and the piece about the new temperature trend analysis is underneath it, "Et tu, LT?"

These are fairly pivotal studies, and may significantly shift the scientific assessment of global warming as it is occurring now. I really enjoy watching the process of science at work.

There is an error in the LiveScience article; it says that the previous analysis by Spencer and Christy's group showed a tropospheric cooling, whereas the new analysis shows a warming. In actuality, the new correction increases the warming trend in Spencer and Christy's data by about 50%. They report a decadal trend (from 1979) of 0.12 degrees C, in contrast to Mears and Wentz, who get 0.19 degrees C. In either case and considering the error bars, the tropospheric temperature trends are now in agreement with models of how the surface and atmosphere are warming.

1 posted on 08/12/2005 8:20:25 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Lets see, as I remember we haad an Ice Age and now we don't... hmmmm. Yep. I think its getting warmer.

The real question is the role of man. And the jury is out on that one.


2 posted on 08/12/2005 8:23:15 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
the tropospheric temperature trends are now in agreement with models of how the surface and atmosphere are warming

The fact that the climate is warming has never really been in dispute. The warming & cooling of the planet has been going on forever.

The dispute is whether the current warming trend is man-made, which has never been conclusively proven.

3 posted on 08/12/2005 8:25:08 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

That would explain the so-much warmer winters we have been having lately.

What, you mean we haven't been having warmer winters? They're actually colder???

It must be Bush's fault, then!


4 posted on 08/12/2005 8:25:29 AM PDT by JRios1968 (If you can't laugh at yourself, someone else will do it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962
The real question is the role of man. And the jury is out on that one.

Quantitatively, the jury is still out. Qualitatively, the verdict is in -- we're causing some of it. When the article talks about "models", one of the main things being modeled is the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

5 posted on 08/12/2005 8:26:13 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

Here is the problem, instruments on the ground read one thing and instruments 2 feet up and farther show no warming at all so, those supporting global warming are saying yes, there is global warming, the instruments and how we use them are wrong becuase they don't prove our theory.

Right. Well, you expect little from Yale and, you get it.


6 posted on 08/12/2005 8:26:43 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."


They're moving the goalpost.

What we have no idea about is how much is is caused by humans, and what would be happening if we weren't here?

The earths atmosphere radically warmed and cooled all on it's own many times before humans invented the internal combustion engine. It's not static. Finding that it's gradually changing is not a big shock.


7 posted on 08/12/2005 8:26:46 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I welcome global warming if it is happening.

Only a fool would want colder winters.

If not for a general moderation in the interglacial climate....civilization as we know it would not have developed.

And in those days where were cars, power plants and greedy businessmen?

8 posted on 08/12/2005 8:26:48 AM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
When the climatologists can explain why we had ice ages and why they ended, then I'll buy into whatever they say about human causation for warming.

But until then, the evidence demonstrates that non-human sources for climate changes are far more important than even the worst predictions of the global warming crowd.

The bottom line, I don't care if the earth's warming. I'm not going to change the way I live.

9 posted on 08/12/2005 8:28:04 AM PDT by narby (There are Bloggers, and then there are Freepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Well, interesting.

But, for most folks, we won't care.


Unless global warming actually results in a noticeable change in the weather, which really hasn't happened, people won't get worked up about it.


10 posted on 08/12/2005 8:28:53 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
The dispute is whether the current warming trend is man-made, which has never been conclusively proven.

One of the reasons for doubt was the previous discrepancy between the surface and lower troposphere warming trends. I.e., the models, based on atmospheric physics and the observed surface warming trend, predicted a significant warming in the lower troposphere. The discrepancy is apparently resolved, indicating that this aspect of the models is much less doubtful. Go to the RealClimate link for more information.

11 posted on 08/12/2005 8:30:09 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Even if we are partly to blame, and I don't buy into that, history shows nature balances itself out.

If we get to hot, nature WILL cool us off, one way or another, even if it means going into a new ice age.

That is perhaps in the process already......the salinity levels in the northern Atlantic are rapidly dropping.


12 posted on 08/12/2005 8:31:16 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
What we have no idea about is how much is is caused by humans, and what would be happening if we weren't here?

Actually, given that the models are now in good agreement with the surface AND lower troposphere warming trends, the human contribution to warming due to greenhouse gases will be much better quantified.

13 posted on 08/12/2005 8:31:56 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
When the article talks about "models", one of the main things being modeled is the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

One thing that's being ignored is the effect of environmental "improvements". An article from a year or so ago admitted that cleanups of soot and other particulates had caused some of the warming.

Since CO2 was going up during the decades when the climate was cooling (up till 1970). And those years had no environmental cleanup efforts, a cursory glance might indicate that it's the environmental rule compliance since 1970 that's "caused" the recent warming.

14 posted on 08/12/2005 8:32:03 AM PDT by narby (There are Bloggers, and then there are Freepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Unless global warming actually results in a noticeable change in the weather, which really hasn't happened

A classic statement is this: "Climate = average weather".

It takes a significant shift to change a long-term average, just as a baseball player has to go on an amazing hitting streak in August to raise his batting average significantly if he was hitting .200 from April through July. One of the changes in "average weather" due to warming would be earlier spring thaws and later winter freezes for water bodies in temperate zones (like the United States).

Such trends have been conclusively observed.

15 posted on 08/12/2005 8:35:30 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
One of the reasons for doubt...

The other, for me, is that the very same people screaming about global warming are the very same people, who in the 70's, screamed about the coming ice age. I believe it was even a cover piece on Newsweak.

16 posted on 08/12/2005 8:35:45 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; PatrickHenry
The same Roy Spencer whose analysis is rebutted here wrote an article about the Evolution/ID issue, which was posted last week on FR. At the time, I commented that his article was so scientifically weak, it led me to doubt his global warming research.
17 posted on 08/12/2005 8:35:51 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

Well I would believe it was man inspired if they can show the data that during the last 10,000 years that man has used fire( wood and coal) to cook, warm himself and work every single moment of the day and that didnt effect climate?

After the USSR fell the secularists needed to find something so huge that could never be acurately measured by lay people in order for them to focus their attention. That way it becomes a religion and the scientists are the priests. Research funding are the contributions and enviromental protests are their worship services. To see it any other way is naive.


18 posted on 08/12/2005 8:37:26 AM PDT by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: narby
Good points. Based on what I've read, the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in the 1970s caused a cooling effect. Cleaning that up, primarily due to acid rain concerns, removed that cooling effect, potentially allowing "more" warming now.

Same for soot and aerosols.

Quite a few good climate scientists anticipate that major changes in energy production and usage patterns will moderate the warming trend we're seeing now. I think they're right.

19 posted on 08/12/2005 8:38:42 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
You might find this interesting reading:

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No

The text of the Newsweek article you mention can be found on this site. I don't think it was on the cover.

20 posted on 08/12/2005 8:41:31 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson