Earth Photography: It's Harder Than It Looks

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:06:17 -0500, Bowser wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:29*pm, me wrote:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letter...118334979.html

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

He's just peeved because he recently found out that an ISS major
material of construction is plastic.

Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages) and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

"Warmest years on history" is much like restricting photography
to what mobile phones photographed.

And we're not even going into prehistoric (i.e. before written
records) times or pre-human times, where there were both ice ages
and very warm times which (obviously!) were *not* the result of
human activity. Nor are the worst mass extinction events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
human made. (Think something like 99.9x% or worse individual
animals dead --- a full nuclear war wouldn't be as bad.)

Live with it that climate never was constant, is always changing
--- and change is completely natural.

Sure, if you feel it's man-made, go ahead and change something.
Live with *high* oil prices ($2 per litre gasoline is still
low) and buy cars that use fuel sparingly (always a good idea).
Use good isolation on your home and buy only regenerative electric
energy. Change away from incandescent lamps and switch to LED or
flourescent (with *low* and *bound* mercury contents) or similar
power saving lighting. Start walking or cycling more than driving,
especially for distances under 3 miles. Use well isolated fridges.
Lower your room temperature in winter a bit and don't cool to such
a low temperature in summer. Save water. Use the train instead
of the car or plane. Use public mass transport. Travel less.
And so on and so on and so on. Fight for peace (military
uses a lot of energy and non-renewable resources).

Saving energy where there are litte drawbacks is always a
good idea, no matter if there's global warming or cooling.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

On 03 Mar 2012 05:10:52 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
proxies.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
proxies.

In other words you admit that we do have "temperature data" from
several centuries ago. In fact temperature data can be had going
back a few thousand years.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

rOn 04 Mar 2012 05:43:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
proxies.

In other words you admit that we do have "temperature data" from
several centuries ago. In fact temperature data can be had going
back a few thousand years.

I'm not admitting it all: I'm denying it.

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-03-04 03:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

The interpretation of temperature and other environmental data is the
domain of scientists. They have overwhelmingly confirmed a rise in
global temperature averages and by a wide margin attributed it to human
activities in the past 100+ years.
(IPCC Climate Change 2007 aka the "4th report").

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 3/4/12 2:37 AM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

rOn 04 Mar 2012 05:43:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
proxies.

In other words you admit that we do have "temperature data" from
several centuries ago. In fact temperature data can be had going
back a few thousand years.

I'm not admitting it all: I'm denying it.

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric, you are trying to use logic on a liberal lump of lignite. It just
doesn't work: FishHead "feels" there is this 'Global Warming' and all of the
data out there to the contrary just does NOT matter when a LibTard "feels"
something to be true.

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:51:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-04 03:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

The interpretation of temperature and other environmental data is the
domain of scientists. They have overwhelmingly confirmed a rise in
global temperature averages and by a wide margin attributed it to human
activities in the past 100+ years.
(IPCC Climate Change 2007 aka the "4th report").

So what?

That's got nothing to do with whether or not we have temperature data
or have to rely on proxies.

Re the IPCC read
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/la...e-on-the-ipcc/

If you wonder who Judith Curry is read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:52:48 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:




On 3/4/12 2:37 AM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

rOn 04 Mar 2012 05:43:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
proxies.

In other words you admit that we do have "temperature data" from
several centuries ago. In fact temperature data can be had going
back a few thousand years.

I'm not admitting it all: I'm denying it.

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric, you are trying to use logic on a liberal lump of lignite. It just
doesn't work: FishHead "feels" there is this 'Global Warming' and all of the
data out there to the contrary just does NOT matter when a LibTard "feels"
something to be true.

The question is not whether or not there is global warming (which
there is) but whether or not we have temperature data from several
centuries ago. My point was that we do not have direct data.

Note: even though I accept that there has been global warming, I am
doubtful that it can be entirely (or even largely) attributed to
man-made CO2.

Regards,

Eric Stevens