Data Error May Have Hidden Some Warming (Global Warming Skeptics Wrong)

[dissent1977]

WASHINGTON - The puzzling difference between warming temperatures on the ground and not-so-warm readings in the sky above may have been resolved.

Atmospheric researchers studying global warming have sought for years to determine why readings taken from weather balloons didn't show the same increases as readings on the ground. The difference has fueled skeptics of global warming.

Now, researchers at Yale University say exposed instruments on the balloons may be the problem.

Weather balloons are sent up around the world twice a day — at local times equivalent to noon and midnight Greenwich mean time — and older versions of the balloons used temperature probes that were exposed. The result was higher-than-normal readings on probes sent up in daytime because of the sunlight exposure.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050812/ap_on_sc/warming_sky_1;_ylt=AkGioal8LIgftXQhI6UBnPlrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Global warming skeptics proved wrong yet again. Now when will the media stop pretending like there is a real debate behind the science?

[whistle]

1. They have been using defective instruments, how convenient

[Warren Stupidity]

3. my understanding is

that it wasn't that the instruments were defective as much as that the time of day when the readings were made was off - to the extent that in the equatorial regions the readings were being made at night (when it is cooler) rather than the day while the data was being analyzed as if the readings were being made in the daytime. It was clock skew that got them.

But I can see the spin already. Depite the fact the the error correction eliminates one data point that was a problem for global warming, the forces of darkness will use this to continue to spin confusion and doubt.

[whistle]

8. Sounds like LIHOP or MIHOP to me, any environmental....

...scientist worth his or her degree would have caught that very early in the program, not decades later.

[krkaufman]

9. Yep, gotta agree.

I can see the skeptics (deceivers) extrapolating this error across all data gathering, saying, "See, the data is unreliable, so we won't really be able to know whether there is any climate change until we invent new super-duper thermo meter devices, and have collected data for the NEXT hundred years."

[kestrel91316]

2. Every third-grader knows not to put a thermometer in the sunlight

if you want an accurate reading.

Is this maybe a sign of the impending scientific illiteracy epidemic???

[Gman]

4. Then you have Rush that talks about global warming and the ozone layer

as if they were one and the same. This explanation relates too science and the facts surrounding science. Its ridiculous to expect the RW to evn think any of this may be true as it doen't fit their ideology.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Errors and Omissions

These errors -- and others -- have been discussed for several years, but the evidence was always inconclusive. There's really no such thing as a perfect observation protocol, and scientists in every field make constant improvements to their technique.

So, it appears that climate change has actually been authenticated, and its extent is strongly indicative of human "forcing". My only question is: is this the start of a Dansgaard-Oeschger event or a Heinrich event?

--p!

[aquart]

6. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[freeplessinseattle]

7. kick