Posted by:
rodmalm
at Wed Mar 17 22:13:18 2004 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by rodmalm ]
OK, Your graph below doesn't say global temps it says stratosphere temps, we and our weather are in the troposhere, not the stratosphere. I am confused.
First, take into account we are talking about global temp. averages. (I hear so many critics that look at local data only.)
Satellite data has been shown to be much more accurate due to both sample size and Urban sprawl.
First, lets consider sample size, the land based data is from just 99 locations. And predictions and computer models then try to predict what will happen 50-100 years from now. Consider this. We know that glaciers are growing in some areas and shrinking in others. If you were to move just one temperature taking location, from the place the glaciers are melting to where they are growing, you would get completely different results! Remember, we are only talking about a degree change every couple of decades, and we are basing what needs to be extremely accurate (due to the very small change) on a sample size of just 99 locations!. That is absolutely ridiculous. It would be like taking a public opinion poll of 99 people, and claiming the results reflect the total, and are accurate to + or - .01%. Lets assume 49 of the 99 locations show falling temps., and 50 show raising temps. If you move just one station, to another area, you could go from a net average gain to a net average loss.
Second, lets consider Urban Sprawl. If you placed a station to take temps. in a particular location 75 years ago, you would most likely place it in a city. That city would most likely have grown considerably since then. (Just 30 years ago I was surrounded by orchards, now I can't find one in the entire area!) As a result, all the concrete/asphault/buildings that had since been placed in that area would corrupt the data, due to the heat retention characteristics of these materials. You can easily see how that would make it appear that the earth is warming. In order to be accurate, you would really need to have all of your data come from areas devoid of development. Something no one though of when the stations were initially installed.
NASA, the ones that originally testified to congress and came up with the theory of global warming, have been taking temps. of the atmosphere using satellites. This data, that takes temps of many thousands of locations, is obviously far more accurate than the 99 land based stations that have been shown to have problems with accuracy. Again, with temperature changes this small, accuracy is critical! By accuracy, I am talking about the data not being affected by urban sprawl, not that the temp. measurements are inaccurate. (By the way, NASA's measurements have been proven to be accurate by using both weather balloons, and by comparing their satellite data measurements with the land based temp measurements. NASA has changed their position on global warming since then, but that just doesn't make the news!)
Rodralm, Aren't we running out of natural gas? Pemex too. Prices per mmbtu have gone up 500% in last five years. Bolivia's president got sacked in September because Bolivia was going to export the stuff to USA. Greenspan mentioned depleted nat gas reserves a serious threat to our economy. Even if one doesn't like greenspan look at the five year charts of NAT GAS on the commodity boards. Enron has the piping for the gas if it is here in the states, but the US reserves are running short.
I am not sure I follow the Enron connection.
The companies that hold gas rights outside the US and Mexico would make the kings share of the money. Right?
First, natural gas is regularly burned off (wasted) because it is basically a by product of oil drilling. It generally isn't worth the trouble to transport it to the public, power plants. There is actually quite a lot of it. Notice all the flames coming from stacks on top of all the large oil rigs? They are burning off the natural gas that comes up with the oil. If you don't see any flames, they are probably harvesting it instead of burning it.
Second, natural gas reserves. I'm pretty sure that Greenspan was talking about natural gas that is being held in storage facilities, not the ability to get the stuff out of the ground. Generally, reserves means what has already been taken out of the ground and is in storage.
Third, if all the coal burning plants had to be shut down, the only thing we could replace them with quickly, would be natural gas burning plants. Enron could then make a killing due to both rising natural gas prices, and the enormous increase in the volume it sold.
As for the stratosphere, troposphere, etc. Wouldn't you think there would be a massive increase in all atmospheric temperatures if green house gasses were causing global warming. (considering the heat indexes of gasses "the atmosphere" vs. solids "Earth". For those that don't understand this, what takes more energy, heating a certain volume of air 10 degrees or heating a sold 10 degrees?) The theory is that these gasses prevent cooling by preventing heat from radiating into space, should mean that we would see temperature changes in the atmosphere first. And this heating would then work it's way down. If we could measure tempereature changes from land based stations, wouldn't ANY atmosphere readings be extremely exaggerated compared to the Earth's surface temp. readings? This contradicts the satellite data.
Rodney
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Great response, two questions though Rodram - rodmalm, Wed Mar 17 22:13:18 2004