Global Warming: a real or unreal problem?
I recently saw an interview with a man (I believe from England) who stated that the underlying reason given for global warming was a layer of gasses in the upper atmosphere that trap heat around the planet. This is the "Greenhouse effect." His statement was that all the computer models on planet temperatures was based, more or less, on this effect.
He also stated that it was all theory, but there was a scientist who has been measuring these gasses for over 20 years and that (guess what?) there is no change in them. In other words, his implication is that there is no Greenhouse around planet earth. That would mean all the computer models are incorrectly biased by a physical effect that isn't there.
I have also heard that the average temperature of the earth is based on 1) various and changing data and data points, 2) appears to match solar activity more than the computer models on Greenhouse effect, and 3) has actually gone down over the past few years.
My questions now are:
Has anyone else heard anything about this measurement of gasses to detect the Greenhouse?
Has anyone confirmed that the data collection process is standard or compatible over time?
Has anyone determined whether or not collected data has or has not been tampered with, edited, or otherwise tinkered with?
Is the planet warming or cooling?
What time span is needed to confirm anything about average planetary temperatures?
Is Pluto really not a planet? (threw that on in to see if you are watching)
Can man's activity really have any long range impact on the planet? This issues rises when some volcanic activity seems to do more over a period of time than anything we do.
Should I buy a warmer coat or can I get another 20 winters out of this one? (Being 71 puts me in much the same boat as outgoing congressmen -- I can screw up the system and never have to pay for it!)
Somebody help me with this. But the questions have to be answered directly. I'm tired of spin.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The decade in a nutshell...
Here we go again. Just as the media got the "turn of the century" wrong, they are at it again with the "end of the decade." It always fascinates me how the general public is fascinated with dates that end in "0" as being something important --- like God is a power of ten kind of guy.
Think of it; the first year was year 1. There was no year 0. So the first ten years were 1-10. And the second decade began with year 11. When you carry this forward you see that the second century started with year 101. And so forth. The last year of the 20th century was 2000. And the 21st century began with Jan. 1, 2001.
The media got this mostly wrong, although a few places noted the discrepancy. The straight thinkers were swept way by the tsunami of "it ends in 0" advocates. This will happen again now with the "passing of the first decade of the 21st century" (sic). Since the last year of the first decade is 2010, they have jumped the gun by twelve months!
How can we trust the media, who gets something as simple as this wrong, to report the complexities of the news right? What became of the news reportors who could actually report news without offering their personal opinions? Indeed, what become of teachers in journalism class who could teach journalism instead of propaganda? I guess I grew up in a different world.
So, roll with the tide. Just remember that they are simply wrong, about virtually everything, no less! It's your safest position to take.
It comes to my attention (only took three days) that a decade can be ANY ten year period, starting and stopping anytime you want. So, 1997-2006 is a decade. However, I still think the "it ends in 0 and is therefore notable" crowd is nutty. And it becomes definitely wrong when ordinal numbers are used: the century's first decade is 2001-2010. Period. Anyway, it's nice to know there is an "out."
Here we go again. Just as the media got the "turn of the century" wrong, they are at it again with the "end of the decade." It always fascinates me how the general public is fascinated with dates that end in "0" as being something important --- like God is a power of ten kind of guy.
Think of it; the first year was year 1. There was no year 0. So the first ten years were 1-10. And the second decade began with year 11. When you carry this forward you see that the second century started with year 101. And so forth. The last year of the 20th century was 2000. And the 21st century began with Jan. 1, 2001.
The media got this mostly wrong, although a few places noted the discrepancy. The straight thinkers were swept way by the tsunami of "it ends in 0" advocates. This will happen again now with the "passing of the first decade of the 21st century" (sic). Since the last year of the first decade is 2010, they have jumped the gun by twelve months!
How can we trust the media, who gets something as simple as this wrong, to report the complexities of the news right? What became of the news reportors who could actually report news without offering their personal opinions? Indeed, what become of teachers in journalism class who could teach journalism instead of propaganda? I guess I grew up in a different world.
So, roll with the tide. Just remember that they are simply wrong, about virtually everything, no less! It's your safest position to take.
It comes to my attention (only took three days) that a decade can be ANY ten year period, starting and stopping anytime you want. So, 1997-2006 is a decade. However, I still think the "it ends in 0 and is therefore notable" crowd is nutty. And it becomes definitely wrong when ordinal numbers are used: the century's first decade is 2001-2010. Period. Anyway, it's nice to know there is an "out."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
