NASA says last decade hottest on record
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: online shopping
Next: car frum
From: in2dadark on 23 Jan 2010 20:51 On Jan 23, 7:35 pm, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote: > You should have been around in the Thirties if that is what you want to > believe. > > As to the temperature in Florida, just a week or so ago it was 34 degrees at > my place in Key West, the lowest temperature ever recorded here > > "in2dadark" <in2dad...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:f37bd34e-7396-4656-b931-9afc5c9a9b85(a)b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 23, 6:24 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote: > > >http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.htmlhttp... > > I don't need nasa for that. I agree it's hotter. But I don't know why > it has to be a red or blue issue... It's hotter in the winters here in > Fla now. I've used the AC more this winter than any I can remember. If > it keeps up I don't think real estate will be worth much down here in > another decade, especially if they have another summer like the last > one. Cold weather used to last longer down here. Now it's just a fleeting visitor.
From: C. E. White on 24 Jan 2010 14:38 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:mO2dncOb9ebnQcfWnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html?hpw - Is "man made" global warming real? I don't know. - Is there a conspiracy of sorts promoting "man made" global warming? Beyond a doubt. - Is there good data supporting the claim that the the earth is warming? No. Perhaps data from the last 50 years is reliable, but even that is open to doubt. Even the pro-global warming scientist acknowledge that they must "adjust" the data to correct for difference in measurement techniques and changes in the micro environment around measurement points. These adjustments can be (are?) tailored to suit the desired conclusions. - Has the Earth's climate been stable for millions of years. No. - Are there political reasons for promoting "man made" global warming and the need to control it beyond preserving the Earth's environment? Definitely. - Is global warming a bad thing? - Actually I don't think anyone adequately addresses this question. Certainly if global warming happens, there will be winners and losers. But will the "net" be good or bad? For certain the Earth's climates changes constantly. There are always winners (humans) and losers (dinosaurs). - Do you trust politicians to try and manipulate things based on their opinions of who should win and who should lose? I don't. - Will the measures proposed to control global warming work? I don't think so. - Will the measures proposed to control global warming affect the world's economy? Definitely. Again, there will be winners and losers. - Do you trust politicians to make the sort of decisions proposed to control global warming? I don't. My net is - I don't trust the science behind "man made" global warming. I don't trust the motives of the people "promoting" global warming. I don't trust politicians to make rational decision about how to control global warming (even if it is actually true). I can't even be sure global warming (if true) is a bad thing. I have always been suspicious that certain factions have seized on "man made" global warming as a tool to be used to implement measures they feel are necessary. I might even agree with some of these measures (reduction in dependence on foreign oil for one, more responsible energy and raw material use for another). However, I think it is a bad strategy to try and use "man made" global warming as an excuse for implementing changes. It leads to exactly the sort of distrust of science and politicians the whole "man made" global warming debate has engendered. Do you trust the groups promoting "man made" global warming? I don't. Ed
From: dr_jeff on 24 Jan 2010 15:00 Mike Hunter wrote: > Search "James E Hansen, Debunked" and "How can CO2, a gas that comprise less > than one half of one percent of our atmosphere effect the temperature of the > earth, up or down" THEN decide WBMA I have found this article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u Thanks. Based on all the information that is available to me, including the info supposedly debunk climate change, I have reaffirmed my conclusion that climate change is real, humans are seriously harming our environment and that CO2 is a major driver of climate change. Jeff > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges 'notion that human emissions are > responsible for global warming' & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill > Global Warming Fears ]. > > Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of > former Vice-President Al Gore's closest allies in the promotion of man-made > global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at > NASA. > > Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former > supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear > soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that > Hansen "embarrassed NASA" with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen > was "was never muzzled." Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of > international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming > fears. > > "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that > global warming is man made," Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the > Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. "I was, in > effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate > his resources, and evaluate his results," Theon, the former Chief of the > Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of > the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained. > > "Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency > position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast > climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by > coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before > Congress," Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created > worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials > against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his > claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite > doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! - See: Don't Panic Over Predictions > of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen - UK Register: Veteran > climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' - June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: > NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes > against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming - June > 23, 2008 ] > > Theon declared "climate models are useless." "My own belief concerning > anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically > simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid > scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit," > Theon explained. "Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed > data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what > they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They > have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated > independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science > should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate > model forecasts to determine public policy," he added. > > "As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters' programs (1982-94), an SES > position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the > entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, > Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, > in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," > Theon wrote of his career. "This required a thorough understanding of the > state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by > reading books and journal articles," Theon added. (LINK) Theon also > co-authored the book "Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods." [Note: > Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from > man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and > physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, > Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to > receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil > Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning > NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA > Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA's Apollo 7, Chemist and > Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA's Plum Brook > Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years > of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, > Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, > Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon > Facility] > > Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced > in 2006 when his film "An Inconvenient Truth" was released. According to > satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore's film was released, > Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has > slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists > have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as > peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. "Vice > President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless > claims that the "debate is over" appear to be ignoring scientific reality," > Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works > Committee. > > A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 > international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming > fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are > former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change > that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow > almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and > a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist > from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese > scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added > and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These > scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by > Gore and the UN IPCC. > > The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' > equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and > prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global > warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists > overwhelmed the meeting, with '2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile > to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ( See full reports here & here ] In > addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed > 68% disagree that global warming science is "settled." A November 25, 2008, > article in Politico noted that a "growing accumulation" of science is > challenging warming fears, and added that the "science behind global warming > may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation." More evidence > that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists > "rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global > warming". An American Physical Society editor conceded that a "considerable > presence" of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists > countered the UN IPCC, declaring: "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the > Climate". India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. > International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC "be called to account and > cease its deceptive practices." > > The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the > key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made > climate doom predictions. [See: Global warming ranks dead last, 20 out of 20 > in new Pew survey. Pew Survey: & Survey finds majority of U.S. Voters - > '51% - now believe that humans are not the predominant cause of climate > change' - January 20, 2009 - Rasmussen Reports ] > > The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady > stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient > developments challenged the UN's and former Vice President Al Gore's claims > that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." > > On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of > man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the > following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies > predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the > discredited "Hockey Stick"; inconvenient developments and studies regarding > rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland's > ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme > Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; > Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the > failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted. > > # # # > > ORIGINAL FULL TEXT LETTER SENT VIA EMAILS: > > --Original Message-- > From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon(a)XXXXXXX] > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:05 PM > To: Morano, Marc (EPW) > Subject: Climate models are useless > Marc, First, I sent several e-mails to you with an error in the address and > they have been returned to me. So I'm resending them in one combined e-mail. > Yes, one could say that I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had > to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I > did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation. He > was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on > climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change > or mankind's effect on it). He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his > claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress. > My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do > not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very > important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly > or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the > observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither > explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they > did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be > replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to > how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for > using climate model forecasts to determine public policy. > With best wishes, John > # # > From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon(a)XXXXXX] > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:50 PM > To: Morano, Marc (EPW) > Subject: Re: Nice seeing you > Marc, Indeed, it was a pleasure to see you again. I appreciate the > opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that Global Warming is man > made. A brief bio follows. Use as much or as little of it as you wish. > John S. Theon Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas > Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology > (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA > Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology > Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC > (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA > Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., > (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation > in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & > Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research > Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth > Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global > Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences > Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99). > As Chief of several NASA Hq. Programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was > responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, > including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, > and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and > in the private sector who worked on climate research. This required a > thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with > climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles. I > hope that this is helpful. > Best wishes, John > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) > > a.. Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS arrested > b.. NASA's Hansen Reaches Escape Velocity By James Lewis > c.. Fixing Science > > "The atmosphere is a mixture of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), and all the > other gases (1%) that surrounds. The balance is moisture Earth. High above > the planet, the atmosphere becomes thinner until it gradually reaches space. > It is divided into five layers." > > "People usually describe the temperature as hot or cold. The real definition > of temperature is the measure of the average speed of air molecules." > > "Even though temperature changes every day and every season, the Earth's > average temperature is always in the right range to support life. > > "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a kind of gas, that comprises less than 1% (.004) > of the atmosphere. That isn't that much carbon dioxide in but it is still > important. Carbon dioxide is one of the Greenhouse gas the helps trap heat > coming from the Sun in our atmosphere through the greenhouse effect Without > the gasses in our air, the Earth would much colder." > > "Moisture can be found in the form of Ice, Water, Vapor and Ions in the > Troposphere" > > "The Troposphere is the first level of the atmosphere and where all of the > moisture is found and it has the greatest single effect on the temperature" > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:mO2dncOb9ebnQcfWnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html?hpw > >
From: dr_jeff on 24 Jan 2010 15:03 Mike Hunter wrote: > You should have been around in the Thirties if that is what you want to > believe. > > As to the temperature in Florida, just a week or so ago it was 34 degrees at > my place in Key West, the lowest temperature ever recorded here Big deal. The plural of anecdote is not data. You're supposedly an engineer. You should understand this. Of course, you should also understand how VINs work, but you used to argue that the first digit had something to do with percent US content of cars. When you get a clue, let us know. Until then, we will continue to see that the old addage that it is better to remain silent and let everyone think you are fool than to open your mouth (or type on the keyboard) and prove it. Jeff > "in2dadark" <in2dadark(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:f37bd34e-7396-4656-b931-9afc5c9a9b85(a)b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 23, 6:24 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote: >> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html?hpw > > I don't need nasa for that. I agree it's hotter. But I don't know why > it has to be a red or blue issue... It's hotter in the winters here in > Fla now. I've used the AC more this winter than any I can remember. If > it keeps up I don't think real estate will be worth much down here in > another decade, especially if they have another summer like the last > one. > >
From: dr_jeff on 24 Jan 2010 15:14
C. E. White wrote: > > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:mO2dncOb9ebnQcfWnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html?hpw > > - Is "man made" global warming real? I don't know. I do. It is real. > - Is there a conspiracy of sorts promoting "man made" global warming? > Beyond a doubt. Really? Evidence, please. Or is the conspiracy coverup part of this? > - Is there good data supporting the claim that the the earth is warming? > No. Perhaps data from the last 50 years is reliable, but even that is > open to doubt. Even the pro-global warming scientist acknowledge that > they must "adjust" the data to correct for difference in measurement > techniques and changes in the micro environment around measurement > points. These adjustments can be (are?) tailored to suit the desired > conclusions. I totally disagree. First, how do you have good data if one doesn't correct for errors? Second, how do you figure that these adjustments are tailored for anything? Again, evidence, please. > - Has the Earth's climate been stable for millions of years. No. So? > - Are there political reasons for promoting "man made" global warming > and the need to control it beyond preserving the Earth's environment? > Definitely. Really? Evidence please. > - Is global warming a bad thing? - Actually I don't think anyone > adequately addresses this question. Certainly if global warming happens, > there will be winners and losers. But will the "net" be good or bad? For > certain the Earth's climates changes constantly. There are always > winners (humans) and losers (dinosaurs). Well, with global warming, there will be plenty of human losers, like when the sea level rises because the ocean is grow less dense (i.e., it is expanding because it is getting warmer). In addition, humans are definitely degrading our environment in many other ways. > - Do you trust politicians to try and manipulate things based on their > opinions of who should win and who should lose? I don't. I don't really trust politicians at all. > - Will the measures proposed to control global warming work? I don't > think so. Please provide a better idea. > - Will the measures proposed to control global warming affect the > world's economy? Definitely. Again, there will be winners and losers. And using less energy by becoming more efficient (which is not unlimited) is a good thing for the economy. > - Do you trust politicians to make the sort of decisions proposed to > control global warming? I don't. Then who should make the decisions? Mike Hunter? Me? I would hope not either one. > My net is - I don't trust the science behind "man made" global warming. What's wrong with the science? > I don't trust the motives of the people "promoting" global warming. I > don't trust politicians to make rational decision about how to control > global warming (even if it is actually true). I can't even be sure > global warming (if true) is a bad thing. Yeah, changing the concentration of a gas that has major effects on plants and increasing the temperature of the planet - yeat, that sounds like a good idea. > I have always been suspicious that certain factions have seized on "man > made" global warming as a tool to be used to implement measures they > feel are necessary. I might even agree with some of these measures > (reduction in dependence on foreign oil for one, more responsible energy > and raw material use for another). However, I think it is a bad > strategy to try and use "man made" global warming as an excuse for > implementing changes. It would be if the science did not back it up. > It leads to exactly the sort of distrust of > science and politicians the whole "man made" global warming debate has > engendered. > > Do you trust the groups promoting "man made" global warming? I don't. I trust their conclusions after looking at the facts. > Ed |