Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (164829)	7/26/2001 5:18:25 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

Good summary!

To: goldworldnet who wrote (164829)	7/26/2001 5:44:16 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University) This says that since 1940 30% of .45C or .135C degrees has occurred. Now from the article greeningearthsociety.org A big discrepancy exists between The surface record and the space based measurements. But a large part of the discrepancy comes from places where one might believe not the best of practices of measurement are used. While the surface record was registering a global warming of +0.4°C between 1979 and the present, the satellite MSU record was showing a quite different trend. It was also showing a warming, but less than 0.1°C (not the 0.4°C claimed for the surface). Even this small trend was not evenly spread across the full twenty-one years, nor was it truly global. Instead it resulted from the warmth of 1998 caused by the big El Niño of 1997-98. Up to that time, the satellites were actually registering a slight global cooling. After the effect of 1998 is included, the Southern Hemisphere still shows a slight cooling, with only the Northern Hemisphere showing a small warming for the full twenty-one years. While global warming skeptics have expressed public disquiet about this discrepancy between the MSU and surface data for many years, the gap between them simply has become too large to be ignored any longer, not even by those institutions that have been predicting global warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases [8][12]. It is even more puzzling that the MSU record is not diverging from the surface record everywhere. Instead, the two records are in close agreement over North America, Western Europe, and Australia the very regions where the station records have been properly collected and maintained. Elsewhere, the surface and satellites diverge, with the surface record showing a significant warming while the MSU shows an almost neutral trend. The biggest differences between the two records [9][12] occur in 1) A broad band over the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia 2) West Africa 3) Central Brazil 4) Polynesia 5) Pacific Ocean west of Mexico 6) Northeastern Siberia Clearly, these are not regions where we have available reliable, consistent, and well-maintained surface records. It is hardly credible to associate the divergence between the satellite and surface records to natural causes, when the ostensible natural causes are so selective as to avoid detection in the well-monitored populated areas in OECD countries. Southeast Asia has been so racked by war and political upheaval in the 20th century that its records lack continuity and consistency. Tropical stations in Malaysia and Indonesia show warming, while Darwin and Willis Island in Australia, both tropical stations in the same region, do not. greeningearthsociety.org tom watson tosiwmee