|
|
Post by stranger on Mar 13, 2010 2:53:38 GMT
Carlos, it is very difficult to observe the water's rise when you are in the midst of the flood.
The sad fact is that "green energy" provides little energy, at great cost. Now, IF we could reduce our energy consumption by two or three orders of magnitude and bring energy consumption back to 17th century levels, "green energy" would be cost effective and plentiful. But we cannot do that - UNLESS you want to reduce human population to something below the 250 million level. And keep it there.
But that is below the point at which a technological society is feasible. So in going to "green energy" you condemn almost all humans to a miserable death through cold, starvation, or thirst. And you still do nothing to insure the survival of the human race. That is a very poor trade off just to further a so far unsuccessful concept.
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Mar 13, 2010 8:28:59 GMT
While I am in no way favoring AGW, the near-surface AMSU satellite measurements are now showing the planet as 1.18DegF warmer than this time last year.
Bearing in mind the much dolder than normal US, European and East Asian winters, compare to a much warmer than normal Canadian winter, I have a growing belief that the AMSU data is useless in showing what is really happening in the planetary temperature system.
Perhaps we should only be using other [accurately measurable] metrics:
|
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Mar 13, 2010 8:31:03 GMT
Sorry the system decided to post my [incomplete ] message withour reference to my views;
Continuing:
useable metrics[Possibly]:
a) Total Polar ice extent
|
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Mar 13, 2010 8:33:07 GMT
It did it again;
Useable metrics:
a) Total polar ice cover
b) Deep ocean temperatures as measured by Argo buoys.
The latter might be best of all. I think someone else already suggested this.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 14, 2010 1:16:13 GMT
It did it again; Useable metrics: a) Total polar ice cover b) Deep ocean temperatures as measured by Argo buoys. The latter might be best of all. I think someone else already suggested this. Translation: Please - this is getting desperate. Can we try and find something which is heading in the right direction. We were happy with satellite readings for a good few years but enough is enough - Spencer & Christy are history. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 14, 2010 2:06:51 GMT
It did it again; Useable metrics: a) Total polar ice cover b) Deep ocean temperatures as measured by Argo buoys. The latter might be best of all. I think someone else already suggested this. Translation: Please - this is getting desperate. Can we try and find something which is heading in the right direction. We were happy with satellite readings for a good few years but enough is enough - Spencer & Christy are history. Seems to me its a matter of what you are trying to measure. If your objective is to measure the heat of the LT then satellites are probably your best available tool. OTOH, if you are trying to measure a radiation inbalance then measuring the temperature of the LT is sort of like trying to determine if you have a fever by placing a mercury thermometer about an 1/16th of an inch above the toenail of your big toe. . . .opps I take that back thats how NOAA does it.  |
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Mar 14, 2010 2:35:27 GMT
Agreed, glc, lets throw all our knowledge out of the window and design human society around the findings of tree-rings which disagree with thermometers for the last 50 years because God-only-knows-why. It'll be like Maoism except even more senseless.
|
|
