Quote:
Originally Posted by Superman
If anybody chimes in with the "global warming is a hoax" deflection, I'm going to regard them as someone who does not understand the topic of this thread. The hoax deflection is not a way of addressing the topic of this thread but rather, a way of evading the topic altogether. The topic of this thread is the "cap and trade" legislation under consideration. If you don't understand, just read.....don't write.
|
That's like if you shot someone in self defense but couldn't mention the self defense part to anyone who asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superman
Liberals believe in the Sun. No quarrel there. We just have not seen the data showing the increase in nuclear fusion there that has resulted in the warming trends. Without that data, we would assume the Sun's warming effect to be relatively stable. Carbon emissions however, have been changing lately. Coincidentally, so have Earth surface temperatures. And lastly, there is the question of whether it passes the straight face test to say "Sure, we're placing billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere but.....it's not impacting the environment."
|
Hmm, Einstein said "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." and that seems to be what Nasa is doing to give us our warming data.
From:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/page2.html
So how does NASA's data compare with other temperature sources? As we explained in our earlier article, NASA data is derived from a grid of ground-based thermometers. During the last thirty years, we also have the benefit of more sophisticated technology - satellites which can indirectly record temperatures across most of the planet. The satellite data is from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).
In 1998 (left side of the graph below) NASA and the satellite data sources RSS and UAH all agreed quite closely - within one-tenth of a degree. Ten years later - in March 2008 - NASA is reporting temperature anomalies more than 0.5 degrees warmer than UAH. The divergence between NASA and UAH has increased at a rate of 0.13 degrees per decade (red lines below.) In contrast, RSS has converged with UAH over the period and is now within 0.02 degrees (blue lines below.)
Viewing the NASA 250-mile map for March below, what immediately grabs the attention is that NASA has essentially no data (gray areas) in most of Canada, most of Africa, the Greenland ice sheet, and most of Antarctica. This begs the question, how can one calculate an accurate "global temperature" while lacking any data from large contiguous regions of three continents?
So what was NASA missing?
Not surprisingly, the missing areas in Canada and Africa were cold. The NASA data thus becomes disproportionately weighted towards warm areas