it seems from the report that the data are based on actual sleeping habits. this is to say that the time spent sleeping is, if anything, a symptom, not a cause. lots of rich people fly to Paris every day. this does not mean that flying to Paris every day will make you any richer.
The problem with that is, I really want to be rich (I think I'm rich too!) but I'm not flying to Paris at all.
OK - no more anecdotes. Here are some facts
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Na sa News/2002/200201317366.html
Tropical cloudiness decreased during the 1990s, and "greenhouse scientists" are at a loss as to why.
Orthodox greenhouse industry theory says - CO2 warms the oceans, which causes more evaporation, which puts more water vapour (the dominant greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, and more clouds. (John Daly's words) Yet - there are less clouds, aren't there?
1)
You may put weight where you like. The problem is, that most of the advertised work of many of these scientists is only the doom and gloom stuff. Which is why during the 1970s and 1980s, many of these scientific climatic organisations (especially American ones) are on the record as warning that the earth was about to go into another ice age.
To think that all the scientists are in agreement is absolutely untrue, though that may be the impression you get from the media. That "the world is going to be ok" doesn't really make headlines.
Try this for size
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?clas s= your%20say&subclass=general&category=columnists%20 analysis&story_id=22575
Just another sceptics point of view. What's accepted for fact is often extremely doubtful.
Perhaps it's me, but it seems the only people that are objecting to the science are the ones whose incomes don't depend on it.
2)
Yes, there have been some deep sea buoys measuring temperature. But they're not included in the overall pattern that is presented when climate change is looked at, as is the case with the hundreds of weather stations around the world - because they're not surface temperatures. Just like temperatures from under the earths surface are not taken.
There are only two readings across time in this deep sea experiment - one in the 1950s, and one more recently. The problem with that, as any grade 10 student could tell you - what happens if either of those two years were anomalous? What happens if 195x was really cold, and 200x was really hot?
And who's to say that the reading from the 1950s was at all accurate anyway? The temperature was taken between 700 and 1100 metres down!
Regardless - back to the point, this is research done in isolation from general climate research, the statistics do not go towards station records that collect climate figures.
3)
My mistake, not NASA, NOAA. Getting my Govt agencies mixed up
Try these links, they're from Daly's page, if you doubt their authenticity I suggest you contact him
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/nasa.gif
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/nasa-ann.gif
I'd certainly like to see some of your links to suggest that satellite data has been re-examined. I never heard anything about it. Regardless, I wonder who/how re-examined it to prove it's suddenly got warmer. I'm skeptical.
4)
I don't have the link to hand, I can only promise you I read it somewhere authorative. I will see if I can dig it out, and if I can I will post it. Daly himself may know - perhaps email him?
5)
Yet all the models are revised year after year. Some up, some down. And remember, most weather bureaus can't accurately forecast a few days in advance. Let alone years.
If you're basing "global warming" off anecdotal evidence, Canberra in Australia (where I live) has just had one of the coolest summers ever. The opposite of your experience. And please, don't try that b-s line on me that "global warming makes the extremes greater", because that's not global warming.
But allow me to present the case against the global warming phenomenon.
1. The temperature that is used by most scientists to prove the world is "warming up" is taken at posts that have been established for circa 100 years. Any further back than that there's no guarantee that the information is accurate. As a result of scientists normally living in larger cities as opposed to country towns, most of those weather posts were set up beyond the outskirts of large towns/cities approximately one hundred years ago.
However, as is the nature of these cities, they have grown/sprawled to encompass these weather posts. Now, as any scientist can tell you, cities are warmer than their surrounding regions. It's known as the "urban heat island effect". Tarmac, cement and all those other human building materials absorb and retain a much greater proportion of the heat that hits them during the day than does undeveloped land. Try walking over bitumen during a hot day and then walk over dirt. You'll see what I mean.
As these hotter cities expand to encompass the temperature stations, the temperature recorded by them is artificially increased. However, it's an extremely localised effect - the city is warmer, yes, but there's no way that the city is warm enough to have any effect on the surrounding countryside. It doesn't warm the globe up.
So, to begin with, almost all the statistics the global warming proponents are chucking round are incorrect.
2. Furthermore, land covers only 1/3 of the earth's surface. The other 2/3 is the ocean. Funnily enough, scientists haven't measured the temperature of the ocean over the past 100 years - there are generally only temperature stations located on the land. So the statistics that I've outlined above, that I believe already are flawed, are no greater than 30% of the surface area of the planet.
3. NASA satellites (which have been measuring the temperature of one of the atmospheres of the planet - I forget it's name, but it's about 1km above the surface of the planet) shows that the planet has actually been cooling down since the records have recorded. How is it that the planet has been warming up yet the atmosphere cooling down? And remember, these statistics are taken for the entire planet, not just the area over which is land.
4. From core samples that have been taken in various places over the planet, scientists have been able to determine both carbon dioxide and temperature levels. They've graphed both these over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, and guess what it showed - carbon dioxide moves as a result of temperature, as opposed to vice versa.
5. Another scientific experiment that's very interesting - in an isolated greenhouse, increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Guess what you'll find? That the trees/plants grow faster. And as such, increase their intake of carbon dioxide, and produce more oxygen!
As such, my opinion is that the effort that is spent worried about global warming should instead be re-directed towards the preservation of native habitats, especially old growth forests which are our greatest ally as carbon dioxide recyclers. They are, quite literally, the lungs of our planet.
-- james
ps For some of those statistics I've used above (NASA satellite links, core samples, etc) please head to http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
This is an independently (ie no finance from oil company, etc) run web site run by a man named John Daly, who like myself, believes that the Greenhouse Effect is nothing more than hot air.
The reason why, is you're all winging customers. I'm a shareholder - and when you're a shareholder, and you see they've raised the prices, you think "fantastic" as opposed to "crap".
Of course, I don't use them for my broadband services.
you have to be joking me!
I reckon there are more than 1 in 10 people in the world who are whingers, dejected, unhappy etc.
What better thing to blame it on than stress?
Stress is just a front for having an unhappy life. I know people that work ridiculous hours, work their proverbials off - and they're not stressed.
Oh yeah, notice how it's always public servants (ie government employees) who are stressed? Yet most of these people don't do half the work of people in the private sector.::End of rant::
I've got a good friend who's in the audio business. He works for one of the big organisations that will have to run with whatever is finalised on. He's also what you'd call a real enthusiast.
What he's most concerned about is that on a good audio system setup (like one that would be able to take advantage of the extra frequency response of SACD and DVD-A) is that you can notice the watermarks! Yes, the frequency response is outside the range of the human ear, but remember those debates about CD vs LP...
... well, he says he can pick the difference between watermarked and non-watermarked music because it plays with those outer frequencies.
Now, I personally don't mind THAT much if the companies develop a way of stopping Napster/MP3 etc. I buy most of my music anyway, to encode at higher bit rates. But these companies will really screw consumers if they release watermarked material... because the paying consumers will be getting inferior music in the record companies eternal fight against pirates.
Hang on - this is the ignoramus point of view... without being rude, it's impossible for somebody to live in a country without putting something into it!
They've got to eat; they go down to the shop, they buy (possibly US) products from a US store, putting US kids in a job. They put their money into a US bank account (it's very hard to get an employer to pay money into an overseas bank account) which the banks use to loan to US businesses.
They buy into the US stockmarket, helping to finance R & D for the US economy.
These people CREATE jobs for Americans... they don't take them away.
This is an argument that has been raging on Down Under and is one that I think is ridiculous... as long as the immigrants have some money and a decent education, plus speak the language, the country is getting a FREE ride out of them!
Slashdot Mirror
but like the article said, Apple managed it.
:)
Says something about everyone's favourite fruit company when they can manage what has previously been impossible
-- james
it seems from the report that the data are based on actual sleeping habits. this is to say that the time spent sleeping is, if anything, a symptom, not a cause. lots of rich people fly to Paris every day. this does not mean that flying to Paris every day will make you any richer.
The problem with that is, I really want to be rich (I think I'm rich too!) but I'm not flying to Paris at all.
Or, in other words, I sleep a hell of a lot
-- james
A bit more on the urban heat island
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/urban/
It does exist, and you'd be amazed at how many weather stations are established in major cities.
-- james
OK - no more anecdotes. Here are some factsa sa News/2002/200201317366.html
s s= your%20say&subclass=general&category=columnists%20 analysis&story_id=22575
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/N
Tropical cloudiness decreased during the 1990s, and "greenhouse scientists" are at a loss as to why.
Orthodox greenhouse industry theory says - CO2 warms the oceans, which causes more evaporation, which puts more water vapour (the dominant greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, and more clouds. (John Daly's words) Yet - there are less clouds, aren't there?
1)
You may put weight where you like. The problem is, that most of the advertised work of many of these scientists is only the doom and gloom stuff. Which is why during the 1970s and 1980s, many of these scientific climatic organisations (especially American ones) are on the record as warning that the earth was about to go into another ice age.
To think that all the scientists are in agreement is absolutely untrue, though that may be the impression you get from the media. That "the world is going to be ok" doesn't really make headlines.
Try this for size
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?cla
Just another sceptics point of view. What's accepted for fact is often extremely doubtful.
Perhaps it's me, but it seems the only people that are objecting to the science are the ones whose incomes don't depend on it.
2)
Yes, there have been some deep sea buoys measuring temperature. But they're not included in the overall pattern that is presented when climate change is looked at, as is the case with the hundreds of weather stations around the world - because they're not surface temperatures. Just like temperatures from under the earths surface are not taken.
There are only two readings across time in this deep sea experiment - one in the 1950s, and one more recently. The problem with that, as any grade 10 student could tell you - what happens if either of those two years were anomalous? What happens if 195x was really cold, and 200x was really hot?
And who's to say that the reading from the 1950s was at all accurate anyway? The temperature was taken between 700 and 1100 metres down!
Regardless - back to the point, this is research done in isolation from general climate research, the statistics do not go towards station records that collect climate figures.
3)
My mistake, not NASA, NOAA. Getting my Govt agencies mixed up
Try these links, they're from Daly's page, if you doubt their authenticity I suggest you contact him
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/nasa.gif
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/nasa-ann.gif
I'd certainly like to see some of your links to suggest that satellite data has been re-examined. I never heard anything about it. Regardless, I wonder who/how re-examined it to prove it's suddenly got warmer. I'm skeptical.
4)
I don't have the link to hand, I can only promise you I read it somewhere authorative. I will see if I can dig it out, and if I can I will post it. Daly himself may know - perhaps email him?
5)
Yet all the models are revised year after year. Some up, some down. And remember, most weather bureaus can't accurately forecast a few days in advance. Let alone years.
-- james
I'm sorry, but I'm going to pipe up here.
If you're basing "global warming" off anecdotal evidence, Canberra in Australia (where I live) has just had one of the coolest summers ever. The opposite of your experience. And please, don't try that b-s line on me that "global warming makes the extremes greater", because that's not global warming.
But allow me to present the case against the global warming phenomenon.
1. The temperature that is used by most scientists to prove the world is "warming up" is taken at posts that have been established for circa 100 years. Any further back than that there's no guarantee that the information is accurate. As a result of scientists normally living in larger cities as opposed to country towns, most of those weather posts were set up beyond the outskirts of large towns/cities approximately one hundred years ago.
However, as is the nature of these cities, they have grown/sprawled to encompass these weather posts. Now, as any scientist can tell you, cities are warmer than their surrounding regions. It's known as the "urban heat island effect". Tarmac, cement and all those other human building materials absorb and retain a much greater proportion of the heat that hits them during the day than does undeveloped land. Try walking over bitumen during a hot day and then walk over dirt. You'll see what I mean.
As these hotter cities expand to encompass the temperature stations, the temperature recorded by them is artificially increased. However, it's an extremely localised effect - the city is warmer, yes, but there's no way that the city is warm enough to have any effect on the surrounding countryside. It doesn't warm the globe up.
So, to begin with, almost all the statistics the global warming proponents are chucking round are incorrect.
2. Furthermore, land covers only 1/3 of the earth's surface. The other 2/3 is the ocean. Funnily enough, scientists haven't measured the temperature of the ocean over the past 100 years - there are generally only temperature stations located on the land. So the statistics that I've outlined above, that I believe already are flawed, are no greater than 30% of the surface area of the planet.
3. NASA satellites (which have been measuring the temperature of one of the atmospheres of the planet - I forget it's name, but it's about 1km above the surface of the planet) shows that the planet has actually been cooling down since the records have recorded. How is it that the planet has been warming up yet the atmosphere cooling down? And remember, these statistics are taken for the entire planet, not just the area over which is land.
4. From core samples that have been taken in various places over the planet, scientists have been able to determine both carbon dioxide and temperature levels. They've graphed both these over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, and guess what it showed - carbon dioxide moves as a result of temperature, as opposed to vice versa.
5. Another scientific experiment that's very interesting - in an isolated greenhouse, increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Guess what you'll find? That the trees/plants grow faster. And as such, increase their intake of carbon dioxide, and produce more oxygen!
As such, my opinion is that the effort that is spent worried about global warming should instead be re-directed towards the preservation of native habitats, especially old growth forests which are our greatest ally as carbon dioxide recyclers. They are, quite literally, the lungs of our planet.
-- james
ps For some of those statistics I've used above (NASA satellite links, core samples, etc) please head to http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
This is an independently (ie no finance from oil company, etc) run web site run by a man named John Daly, who like myself, believes that the Greenhouse Effect is nothing more than hot air.
"News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
I'm positive it doesn't fit in the latter category... it's a bit of a stretch (no pun intended) to fit it in the first.
:)
-- james
http://secure.metro.net.au/monashiv/donate.htm
That's the link to donate. Remember folks, that's in Australian dollars - roughly 2 AUD:1 USD
-- james
The reason why, is you're all winging customers. I'm a shareholder - and when you're a shareholder, and you see they've raised the prices, you think "fantastic" as opposed to "crap".
Of course, I don't use them for my broadband services.
-- james
you have to be joking me! I reckon there are more than 1 in 10 people in the world who are whingers, dejected, unhappy etc. What better thing to blame it on than stress? Stress is just a front for having an unhappy life. I know people that work ridiculous hours, work their proverbials off - and they're not stressed. Oh yeah, notice how it's always public servants (ie government employees) who are stressed? Yet most of these people don't do half the work of people in the private sector. ::End of rant::
I've got a good friend who's in the audio business. He works for one of the big organisations that will have to run with whatever is finalised on. He's also what you'd call a real enthusiast.
What he's most concerned about is that on a good audio system setup (like one that would be able to take advantage of the extra frequency response of SACD and DVD-A) is that you can notice the watermarks! Yes, the frequency response is outside the range of the human ear, but remember those debates about CD vs LP...
... well, he says he can pick the difference between watermarked and non-watermarked music because it plays with those outer frequencies.
Now, I personally don't mind THAT much if the companies develop a way of stopping Napster/MP3 etc. I buy most of my music anyway, to encode at higher bit rates. But these companies will really screw consumers if they release watermarked material... because the paying consumers will be getting inferior music in the record companies eternal fight against pirates.
Hang on - this is the ignoramus point of view... without being rude, it's impossible for somebody to live in a country without putting something into it!
They've got to eat; they go down to the shop, they buy (possibly US) products from a US store, putting US kids in a job. They put their money into a US bank account (it's very hard to get an employer to pay money into an overseas bank account) which the banks use to loan to US businesses.
They buy into the US stockmarket, helping to finance R & D for the US economy.
These people CREATE jobs for Americans... they don't take them away.
This is an argument that has been raging on Down Under and is one that I think is ridiculous... as long as the immigrants have some money and a decent education, plus speak the language, the country is getting a FREE ride out of them!