<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Gosh Paul, the Clinton Administration built a satellite to do just that. The Bush Administration deep-sixed its launch, and its been sitting in a warehouse since 1998. The Obama Administration funded its refurbishment, but it's launch has been blocked by the House in the 2012 budget. I wonder why? Oh yeah, we're broke, and can't afford science.<br></span></div><div><br><span></span></div>http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/21dscovr/<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory<br><br><div> </div><div>Ron Force<br>Moscow Idaho USA<br></div><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Arial" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span
style="font-weight:bold;"></span></b></font><br>This leads me to wonder if a globally-averaged surface temperature is really the best metric for determining if the globe is warming or cooling.<br><br>Any thoughts? I don't know what the best way to measure this is, though I suspect it would involve satellite measurements of the overall energy gained from and lost to space. There is also the added factor of what cloud cover does in each case as this affects albedo.<br><br>Just something I've been kicking around trying to get a handle on.<br><br>Paul<br><br></div></div></div></body></html>