Attention deniers: The satellite data is bad, the Earth is warming

[Loren Pechtel]

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

Many of the satellites haven't been keeping station perfectly and that distorted the measurements.

 

[repoman]

Well common sense (with some knowledge of science) says that it will have to happen with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

But in the comments there is one that to the uninformed seems fairly persuasive.

Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is 0.039% of the atmosphere- a trace gas. Water vapor varies, but averages around 1%, and is about ten times more effective a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is about 25 times more prevalent and ten times more effective; that makes it 250 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore about 0.004%. The total human contribution to carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%. So human greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.00%, works out to about 0.001%. Since TOTAL greenhouse effect on temperature is estimated at around 63 degrees Fahrenheit, that would come to human-caused warming of about 0.063 degrees Fahrenheit.
We've had global warming for at least 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity

This is an example of why there should be a top 10 denier-debunking list for the general public. There may already by one on websites like SkepticalScience.com

CO2 may be less of a greenhouse gas than water, but it is long term and blocks wavelengths that water doesn't. Do we have to go through this all the time?!?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Do we have to go through this all the time?!?

Yes. Just like with the 9-11 truthers.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

 

[fromderinside]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

... In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation.

Its all those magic faerie sightings in those Georgia tents.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes. Just like with the 9-11 truthers.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

Dunning Kruger ... and all that ...

 

[maxparrish]

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

Many of the satellites haven't been keeping station perfectly and that distorted the measurements.

Attention true believers: The study adjusted data is bad, the Earth "warming" has still been in a pause.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/...-time-rss-makes-a-massive-upwards-adjustment/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

Many of the satellites haven't been keeping station perfectly and that distorted the measurements.

Attention true believers: The study adjusted data is bad, the Earth "warming" has still been in a pause.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/...-time-rss-makes-a-massive-upwards-adjustment/

1) That's simply complaining about the adjustment, not looking at the why of the adjustment. The reality is that satellites don't keep station perfectly--that takes fuel. Fuel is very expensive. How much would you use your car if you had to stuff cash in the tank rather than gasoline? (Given launch costs anything in space costs more than it's weight in dollar bills. Not to mention that almost nothing in space gets refueled, what it launches with is it--when the tank runs dry that's it. The only things that get refueled are the things people revisit--the Hubble and the various space stations that have been put up there.)

2) Note that that site says it's the most viewed. It says nothing about accuracy.

 

[fromderinside]

Aside

Just wondering. Isn't it more cost effective and accurate to correct data of a projectile rather than an on station satellite. We know that fuel is a problem. Accommodate it in the design.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just wondering. Isn't it more cost effective and accurate to correct data of a projectile rather than an on station satellite. We know that fuel is a problem. Accommodate it in the design.