77% of the surface of the globe is oceanic. What's the densiry of receptors there? Me thinks that the oceans contribute much more to the climatic conditions than do humans. Last time I checked, there were thousands of fixed monitoring points across the oceans. Much lower density than on terra firma. And, no human habitation. By the way, I am very much pro-environment, and have been for decades. I even knew in the early 1970's what the planetary albido was (IIRC, 0.39). I think it's best to minimize the human footprint on the planet. But, not at any cost. I particularly don't like limits on C02, since the only way I can cut my output (lacking heating at home and not owning a car) is to get sick or die. Neither option is appealing. I also need to point out that not only is James Hansen of NASA behind all this foolishness: he made the kool-aid. And, this data doesn't prove that humans have anything to do with this; indeed, it's simple hubris. We've had much worse climatic changes before Henry Ford "invented" the car (actually, it was Daimler, but that's another story.) John Willkie -----Mensaje original----- De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Dale Kelly Enviado el: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:55 AM Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Off topic: Researchers uncover potent greenhouse gas The NASA report is a combination of NASA and NOAA's gathering of data from many sources. How do you conclude that it is based upon a sparsity of monitoring points? Clearly that is true for the reports early years but that is unlikely the case for the later years. I do have some knowledge of NOAA's current capabilities, which are extensive. <"not supported" is passive voice".> How is this important? Again, we ignore the primary subject of this thread, which is a newly introduced and seemingly more powerful source green house gas. Global climate change (currently warming) is a fact and is supported by Craig's posting. However we do not know exactly why temperatures have risen so sharply in the past 30 years and each new piece of evidence is helpful in the analysis. Dale > -----Original Message----- > From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John Willkie > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:26 AM > To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [opendtv] Re: Off topic: Researchers uncover potent greenhouse > gas > > > "not supported" is passive voice. Just what percentage of actual -- say, > habitated -- points on the earth is represented by the NASA data? (very > small, close to nil). And, what do we have to compare it to? > > Seems to me to be an exercise akin to blind folk describing an elephant. > > John Willkie > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En > nombre de Dale Kelly > Enviado el: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:16 AM > Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Off topic: Researchers uncover potent greenhouse gas > > Graig wrote > > We have been in a period of global cooling since 1998, with a rather > > dramatic drop in 2007. > > Your Global Cooling proposition is not supported by the facts as presented > in the following NASA global mean temperature records. You simply cannot > prove a predisposition by cherry picking data to support that position. > The NASA records clearly show that 2007 was actually warmer than 1998. > However, data for the first seven months of 2008 do show a > relative cooling, > though these cooler temperatures are still significantly warmer than the > mean average temperature baseline. Rather than miss characterizing this as > "Global cooling, it is best described by "the temperature rise in 2008 has > slowed somewhat" > > http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt > > > > Consider the work of Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus > > geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; > > environmental and engineering geology; Western Washington University. > > This presentation seems factual, is very interesting and is well presented > but the conclusions are simply one mans opinion. He does conclude that > warming is a fact but cannot prove or disprove that Co2 increases due to > human activities are a source for this increased warming. > > *In conclusion:* your reply does not address the original posting which > reports a newer and more powerful human activity related green > house gases. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > FreeLists.org > > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > unsubscribe in the subject line. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration > settings at FreeLists.org > > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the > word unsubscribe in the subject line. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.