Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
NASA Earth Science

New NASA Data Casts Doubt On Global Warming Models 954

Posted by timothy
from the but-scientists-love-models dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New NASA Data Casts Doubt On Global Warming Models

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:06PM (#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?

  • Re:hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by inviolet (797804) <slashdot@@@ideasmatter...org> on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:08PM (#36915686) Journal

    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.

  • Re:Follow the data! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lessthan (977374) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:16PM (#36915774)

    Warmest decade on record. How is that not the data?

  • Re:Follow the data! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spazdor (902907) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:25PM (#36915878)

    Imagine you're standing in front of a big paper graph, depicting temperature variations over a timeline. The timeline is about 400 thousand years in length, and there is a dramatic spike in the graph every 100 thousand years or so.

    Now, you're holding a dart, and that dart is labeled "industrial revolution." You close your eyes, your friends spin you around a couple times, and you throw the dart at the graph.

    Now, what are the odds that your dart lands less than 200 years away from one of the aforementioned graph spikes? Go on, make a guesstimate.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:43PM (#36916102)

    You can have that same argument next time your pulled over...

    A blood alcohol level in the same range as the CO2 concentration 0.0391 is legal most places, go over 0.08 (just a touch over double) and your facing a drunk driving conviction in most of the world.

    A few hundredths of a percent can actually make a big difference sometimes.

    The ozone layer at its GREATEST concentration is 2 to 8 ppm, yet its generally accepted that its a "pretty big deal"...

  • Re:Follow the data! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spazdor (902907) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:46PM (#36916116)

    Not by that much. Go ahead and double or triple your guesstimate if it'll make you feel better, but global warming deniers are still asking us to believe in a several-hundred-to-one coincidence by positing that the Earth would pick this particular century to warm up, almost immediately(in geoclimatic scales) after we began an unprecedented worldwide project of mass fossil energy extraction.

  • Re:It's all a lie! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BenJCarter (902199) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:48PM (#36916140)
    I hate the way the NIMBYs have turned into BANANAS (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone). The good news is, the science is finally coming to light, and it doesn't look good for the man made global warming alarmists of the eco-industrial-complex. Hopefully we will be shut of this madness before it damages the credibility of legitimate environmental concerns. I'd hate to see us stop trusting legitimate environmental science to the point we end up dumping toxic substances into our air and water again...
  • by J Story (30227) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:49PM (#36916144) Homepage
    So, basically, for anyone to have an argument worthy of debate, they cannot be: Christian, Republican, paid by "Big Oil", or politically incorrect. That makes things so much simpler.

: is not an identifier

Working...