Earth Photography: It's Harder Than It Looks

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by me, Feb 27, 2012.

  1. me

    me Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. me

    me Guest

    me, Feb 27, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. me

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Feb 28, 2012
    #3
  4. me

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Mar 1, 2012
    #4
  5. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:11:23 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 2012-02-27 15:29 , me wrote:
    : > http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letters/posts/post_1330118334979.html
    :
    : Cool photo - for the aurora.
    :
    : Also, easily identifiable is the circular Manicouagan Reservoir -
    : created by damming a river for hydro power (about 5000 MW in a series of
    : 4 dams). The circle is the eroded remnant of a crater created by a
    : meteor impact some 200 M years ago.

    What made the circle lower than the surrounding ground? IOW, how did damming
    the river ensure that the water would remain in the circle? Did they build an
    artificial outer wall?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 2, 2012
    #5
  6. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    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/letters/posts/post_1330118334979.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.

    Quite right. What the hell do we care what happens on Earth?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 2, 2012
    #6
  7. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    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/letters/posts/post_1330118334979.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'.
    :
    : Betcha can't wait to vote for Santorum.

    You forget that Rich is a Canadian and therefore won't be voting in any of our
    primaries. Actually, it is I, a registered Republican for historical reasons,
    who gets to vote for P. Rick Sanitorium. Which I shall do tomorrow (by turning
    in my absentee ballot for next Tuesday's election), as I believe him to be the
    weakest of the group of clowns in my party vying to run against President
    Obama.

    (Before someone remarks that I must be too lazy to go and vote, I use an
    absentee ballot because I leave for work before the polls open and must stay
    for the vote count in the city where I work. The vote count is a major public
    occasion, and the city photographer is expected to cover it. One election is
    pretty much like another, and I've accumulated quite a library of stock
    photos. But it's a good opportunity to experiment with new equipment, etc.)
    :^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 2, 2012
    #7
  8. me

    me Guest

    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/letters/posts/post_1330118334979.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.
     
    me, Mar 2, 2012
    #8
  9. 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, Mar 2, 2012
    #9
  10. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    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
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 3, 2012
    #10
  11. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    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
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #11
  12. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    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.


    You just stated that we have temperature data.

    >We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years'


    Q.E.D.

    > but
    >what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.


    You're changing your claim. Like most deniers you're not capable
    of honest discussion.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #12
  13. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    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.


    See the bitter hate of the rightard.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #13
  14. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    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").

    Two problems with that:

    1. Regardless of what the scientists say, they have not proven the connection
    to human activities. And ...

    2. Even if you accept that connection, they have not shown that the proposed
    "solutions", or *anything* within current human capabilities, will even begin
    to do the job.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 4, 2012
    #14
  15. In article <>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > No. It means that the collective evidence (including temperature records
    > of several kinds) investigated by a wide range of scientists from
    > different disciplines indicate warming and its anthropogenic cause.


    I think the evidence points to variability in temperature over the ages.
    As I recall planet earth at one point was a ball of ice, so I guess we
    have been warming ever since, albeit at a variable rate.

    Although I guess it is possible, it is hard for me to believe it is
    actually anthropogenic, even recently. Nature has pumped a lot more
    trash into the atmosphere then man.

    > I should point out that the (mainly) Republican anti environmental
    > movement playbook is nearly verbatim that of the tobacco industry
    > against the onslaught of legislation and medical advice against smoking.
    >
    > That is to say: influence, denial, cherry picking of facts, dubious
    > (aligned) experts, conspiracy theories and so on.


    You are reading from a different playbook than most of us. First of
    all, I don't think there is a "Republican anti environmental movement."
    There are those who deny the climate has been warming, but I don't see
    that is limited to Republicans or to people who are against the
    environment. In fact, if the latter exists, it would like to see
    temperatures move to any extreme, I would think, as a good way to
    destroy the current environment. Cold would be as good as heat.

    I'm not sure how anybody could deny that temperatures are somewhat
    higher today than a few hundred years ago. However, determining the
    cause is a different matter. Man may be totally responsible or not and
    there are other theories. I don't find the evidence one way or the
    other to be compelling.

    This may, in fact, turn out to be like smoking, where the evidence
    gradually built until it was impossible for most people to deny.
    However, I smoked for many years and mere correlation wasn't sufficient
    to prove causation. Once the evidence became sufficiently strong, I
    quit. Some quit before me and others after, but I had to make that
    decision based on the evidence I saw.
     
    Robert Peirce, Mar 4, 2012
    #15
  16. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:21:24 -0500, Robert Peirce <>
    wrote:
    : In article <>,
    : Alan Browne <> wrote:
    :
    : > No. It means that the collective evidence (including temperature records
    : > of several kinds) investigated by a wide range of scientists from
    : > different disciplines indicate warming and its anthropogenic cause.
    :
    : I think the evidence points to variability in temperature over the ages.
    : As I recall planet earth at one point was a ball of ice, so I guess we
    : have been warming ever since, albeit at a variable rate.

    The earth has been a lot colder, and a lot warmer, in the past than it is now.
    The current warming trend represents the tail end of the last ice age, which
    reached its peak about 11,000 years ago. And there have been many ice ages and
    many warm periods in the earth's history.

    : Although I guess it is possible, it is hard for me to believe it is
    : actually anthropogenic, even recently. Nature has pumped a lot more
    : trash into the atmosphere then man.

    It's not hard to believe that some of the very recent warming has been
    anthropogenic, since the increase correlates rather well with the onset of the
    industrial revolution. But how much of it is anthropogenic is hard to assess,
    because the recent warming would probably have been faster in any case. Once
    the last of the glaciers began to melt, the earth would absorb more sunlight,
    since bare ground is less reflective than snow and ice.

    : > I should point out that the (mainly) Republican anti environmental
    : > movement playbook is nearly verbatim that of the tobacco industry
    : > against the onslaught of legislation and medical advice against smoking.
    : >
    : > That is to say: influence, denial, cherry picking of facts, dubious
    : > (aligned) experts, conspiracy theories and so on.
    :
    : You are reading from a different playbook than most of us. First of
    : all, I don't think there is a "Republican anti environmental movement."
    : There are those who deny the climate has been warming, but I don't see
    : that is limited to Republicans or to people who are against the
    : environment. In fact, if the latter exists, it would like to see
    : temperatures move to any extreme, I would think, as a good way to
    : destroy the current environment. Cold would be as good as heat.
    :
    : I'm not sure how anybody could deny that temperatures are somewhat
    : higher today than a few hundred years ago. However, determining the
    : cause is a different matter. Man may be totally responsible or not and
    : there are other theories. I don't find the evidence one way or the
    : other to be compelling.

    There are two important questions now, and whether or not man is responsible
    for the warming isn't one of them. The two questions are:

    1. Can we do anything meaningful about the warming, or are we risking the
    viability of the world's economic system to fund efforts that can never have
    more than a minimal effect?

    2. Assuming that the answer to question 2 is "yes" (and that, after all, is
    what hasn't been proven), what, if anything, should we do?

    The second question is not as silly as some will try to make it sound.
    Consider this thought experiment: What if the environmentalists were warning
    us of the onset of global cooling, rather than global warming? During the last
    ice age an impenetrable sheet of ice overlay North America as far south as
    Cincinnati. And you have to go back only to 1816 to see how quickly an ice age
    can get started if conditions are right. (Google it; I don't have room to
    explain it here.) The bottom line is that we don't know whether the ultimate
    effect of global warming is to propel us on a course leading to the fate of
    Venus (Google that too, if necessary) or to prevent a devastating ice age.
    What we do know is that the Law of Unintended Consequences has never been
    repealed. So more thought and serious research on this issue, and less
    uninformed and semi-informed bluster, could hardly be amiss.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 4, 2012
    #16
  17. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:21:24 -0500, Robert Peirce <>
    >wrote:
    >: In article <>,
    >: Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >:
    >: > No. It means that the collective evidence (including temperature records
    >: > of several kinds) investigated by a wide range of scientists from
    >: > different disciplines indicate warming and its anthropogenic cause.
    >:
    >: I think the evidence points to variability in temperature over the ages.
    >: As I recall planet earth at one point was a ball of ice, so I guess we
    >: have been warming ever since, albeit at a variable rate.
    >
    >The earth has been a lot colder, and a lot warmer, in the past than it is now.
    >The current warming trend represents the tail end of the last ice age, which


    Denier lies.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #17
  18. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >Wolfgang W
    > ... 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.
    >
    >Ray Fisher
    > Both those claims are lies.
    >
    >Eric Stevens
    > I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
    > proxies.
    >
    >Ray Fisher
    > 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.
    >
    > [Here Rich demonstrates he doesn't appreciate the difference
    > between data and deductions from data.]
    >
    >Eric Stevens
    > I'm not admitting it (at) 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.
    >
    >Alan Browne
    > 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.
    >
    >Eric Stevens
    > So what?
    >
    > That's got nothing to do with whether or not we have temperature
    > data or have to rely on proxies.
    >
    >Alan Browne
    > No. It means that the collective evidence (including temperature
    > records of several kinds) investigated by a wide range of
    > scientists from different disciplines indicate warming and its
    > anthropogenic cause.
    >
    >Getting back to the present: only a small part of the collective
    >evidence is temperature data. That the earth is warming as it climbs
    >out of the Little Ice Age has been accepted for several centuries.


    The denier pushes more lies.

    Tjhne reality is that the "Little Ice Age" ended centuries ago and
    what we're seeing now is a dramatic increase in temperatures that has
    accelerated in just the past couple of centuries.

    >>I should point out that the (mainly) Republican anti environmental
    >>movement playbook is nearly verbatim that of the tobacco industry
    >>against the onslaught of legislation and medical advice against smoking.

    >
    >It has nothing to do with US politics or tobaco.


    It has everything to do with US politics, and in particular the
    disinformation promoted by US oil and coal companies.

    >>That is to say: influence, denial, cherry picking of facts, dubious
    >>(aligned) experts, conspiracy theories and so on.

    >
    >In the field of climate change, this goes on on both sides.


    No, liar, it does not.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #18
  19. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >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").
    >
    >Two problems with that:
    >
    >1. Regardless of what the scientists say, they have not proven the connection
    >to human activities.


    "Cigarettes don't cause cancer"

    > And ...
    >
    >2. Even if you accept that connection, they have not shown that the proposed
    >"solutions", or *anything* within current human capabilities, will even begin
    >to do the job.


    And an outright lie.

    Typical denier stupidity.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #19
  20. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >On 04 Mar 2012 19:24:37 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >
    >>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.

    >>
    >>You just stated that we have temperature data.
    >>
    >>>We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years'

    >>
    >>Q.E.D.
    >>
    >>> but
    >>>what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

    >>
    >>You're changing your claim. Like most deniers you're not capable
    >>of honest discussion.

    >
    >You misunderstood the terminology.


    I misunderstand nothing.

    > When scientists refer to 'data'
    >they are normally referring to primary data,


    When deniers make claims about science they are normally lying.

    >Primary temperature data are readings that someone has made with a
    >measuring instrument.


    And what possible reason would you have for ignoring all other forms
    of temperature data?

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Derek Fountain

    DSLR harder to handhold than P&S?

    Derek Fountain, Apr 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    797
    Lester Wareham
    Apr 19, 2005
  2. Robert11
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,243
    Bucky Breeder
    Nov 16, 2006
  3. FinalHokage

    70-291 harder than 70-291

    FinalHokage, Feb 7, 2006, in forum: MCSA
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    539
    Paul UK
    Apr 11, 2006
  4. GreenXenon
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,373
    Rod Speed
    Jun 26, 2009
  5. GreenXenon

    Why are HDD platters harder than the floppy/ZIP discs?

    GreenXenon, Jun 19, 2009, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    1,264
    Rod Speed
    Jun 26, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page