Stupidity knows no rank: "Climate change is a threat to our national security."

[Old Rocks]

I give flying fucks about a lot of things.

Supposing that you're open to considering contravening references and information (which I highly doubt), what contravening references and information would you accept??

Evidence that would convince the AGU, AIP, and the Royal Society to change their policies concerning AGW.

IOW, you're waiting for the minds of others to be changed before you change yours.

A less objective and more unreasoning mindset cannot be possible.

Thanks for admitting that you're an unanalytical lemming.

The same evidence that would convince the scientists that make up these societies would convince me. Since you are demonstrably, by your posts, an ignorant fuck on this particular subject, I fail to see the value of any of your opinions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We can't accurately predict the weather 1 week out but we're supposed to have absolutely faith that a de minimus increase in an atmospheric trace element is going to kill all the polar bears.

 

[Old Rocks]

And this thread is not about my opinions, in any case. It is about a blue ribbon panel of generals and admirals assessment of the dangers that climate change represents to our national security.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And this thread is not about my opinions, in any case. It is about a blue ribbon panel of generals and admirals assessment of the dangers that climate change represents to our national security.

Let me know when the blue ribbon panel of generals and admirals declares war on the Sun

 

[elvis]

Evidence that would convince the AGU, AIP, and the Royal Society to change their policies concerning AGW.

IOW, you're waiting for the minds of others to be changed before you change yours.

A less objective and more unreasoning mindset cannot be possible.

Thanks for admitting that you're an unanalytical lemming.

The same evidence that would convince the scientists that make up these societies would convince me. Since you are demonstrably, by your posts, an ignorant fuck on this particular subject, I fail to see the value of any of your opinions.

right because dude refuses to gag on Al Gore; therefore, he is not intelligent.

 

[Alan Partridge]

Climatology and math have almost nothing in common.

If you really believe that, your argument is moot.

Any answers to my questions regarding meteorology, or are you still using google?

I'm not going to Google to give you answers to your pointless questions.

But, yeah, it would take me all of 15 or 20 minutes to be one of the worlds leading experts in climatology if I could come to the conclusion, based on no evidence, that my SUV was warming the planet

what you think are pointless questions are actually several of the more important questions regarding meteorology.

When I received my Master's in Climatology, climate change was just relly coming into regards as a legitimate issue, before Gore came along and decided that it would be good to make money off of it.

the fact that you mock it without even thinking to learn about the mechanics of it shows your ignorance.

I don't go around spouting BS about economics or finance, perhaps you should stick to your trained subjects.

 

[elvis]

And this thread is not about my opinions, in any case. It is about a blue ribbon panel of generals and admirals assessment of the dangers that climate change represents to our national security.

Let me know when the blue ribbon panel of generals and admirals declares war on the Sun

When they do, Roxy will call it Bush's War.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You need a degree in cliamtology to properly understand the math and physical relationships of the ocean, troposphere, and heat and form exchange.

For example, what's the hydrologic cycle?
What's the meaning of orographic uplift?
How do mamatus clouds form?
Can you explain the difference of El Nino and La Nina?

you have a degree in economic?

Climatology and math have almost nothing in common.

If you really believe that, your argument is moot.

Any answers to my questions regarding meteorology, or are you still using google?

Do you know what "parts per million" means?

See, when these climate "Experts" talk about CO2 being 380 or 425 it's parts per million, meaning its all but a rounding error.

 

[Alan Partridge]

We can't accurately predict the weather 1 week out but we're supposed to have absolutely faith that a de minimus increase in an atmospheric trace element is going to kill all the polar bears.

Anyone who tells you that for sure, absolutely without a doubt the world will be destroyed by the addition of extra greenhouse gasses should think about science properly.

True, we don't really know what will happen, but things are changing, and I personally, don't see why people have such a problem making small changes to their lives to possibly mitigate some of the negative effects that are being predicted. Also, many of the GW supporting crowd's suggestions, with the exception of the extreme people, would save you money.

 

[Old Rocks]

And this thread is not about my opinions, in any case. It is about a blue ribbon panel of generals and admirals assessment of the dangers that climate change represents to our national security.

Let me know when the blue ribbon panel of generals and admirals declares war on the Sun

Let me know when your IQ gets past the single digits. You wingnuts are real fruitcakes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you really believe that, your argument is moot.

Any answers to my questions regarding meteorology, or are you still using google?

I'm not going to Google to give you answers to your pointless questions.

But, yeah, it would take me all of 15 or 20 minutes to be one of the worlds leading experts in climatology if I could come to the conclusion, based on no evidence, that my SUV was warming the planet

what you think are pointless questions are actually several of the more important questions regarding meteorology.

When I received my Master's in Climatology, climate change was just relly coming into regards as a legitimate issue, before Gore came along and decided that it would be good to make money off of it.

the fact that you mock it without even thinking to learn about the mechanics of it shows your ignorance.

I don't go around spouting BS about economics or finance, perhaps you should stick to your trained subjects.

I feel for you. I put you in the same category as many engineers who labor under the delusion that Earth based hydrocarbons can only come from pressure cooked velicoraptors

 

[Alan Partridge]

Climatology and math have almost nothing in common.

If you really believe that, your argument is moot.

Any answers to my questions regarding meteorology, or are you still using google?

Do you know what "parts per million" means?

See, when these climate "Experts" talk about CO2 being 380 or 425 it's parts per million, meaning its all but a rounding error.

I do know PPM, and it's an important part of the greenhouse effect. Some scientists take readings at different locations around the world, so the measurements are a bit different sometimes.

If you measure CO2 at the top of a mountain versus at a sea shore, chances are, your seashore has more CO2 in the sample

 

[Alan Partridge]

I'm not going to Google to give you answers to your pointless questions.

But, yeah, it would take me all of 15 or 20 minutes to be one of the worlds leading experts in climatology if I could come to the conclusion, based on no evidence, that my SUV was warming the planet

what you think are pointless questions are actually several of the more important questions regarding meteorology.

When I received my Master's in Climatology, climate change was just relly coming into regards as a legitimate issue, before Gore came along and decided that it would be good to make money off of it.

the fact that you mock it without even thinking to learn about the mechanics of it shows your ignorance.

I don't go around spouting BS about economics or finance, perhaps you should stick to your trained subjects.

I feel for you. I put you in the same category as many engineers who labor under the delusion that Earth based hydrocarbons can only come from pressure cooked velicoraptors

well, then your assumption is incorrect

 

[Old Rocks]

Climatology and math have almost nothing in common.

If you really believe that, your argument is moot.

Any answers to my questions regarding meteorology, or are you still using google?

Do you know what "parts per million" means?

See, when these climate "Experts" talk about CO2 being 380 or 425 it's parts per million, meaning its all but a rounding error.

Good God! You are even dumber than I thought. Do you have the slightest idea of what those ppm mean when they get low enough for the oceans to freeze almost to the equator? It has happened in the past. Or when they are high enough for the poles to warm to the point that there are aligators on the shore of the Arctic Ocean? That happened during the PETM.

Here is a graph that shows the growth in CO2 in this century. It also shows how the yearly increased is accelerating.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you really believe that, your argument is moot.

Any answers to my questions regarding meteorology, or are you still using google?

Do you know what "parts per million" means?

See, when these climate "Experts" talk about CO2 being 380 or 425 it's parts per million, meaning its all but a rounding error.

I do know PPM, and it's an important part of the greenhouse effect. Some scientists take readings at different locations around the world, so the measurements are a bit different sometimes.

If you measure CO2 at the top of a mountain versus at a sea shore, chances are, your seashore has more CO2 in the sample

I had asked that earlier if CO2 was evenly disbursed or does it tend to read higher at varying altitudes.

Also how confident are you in CO2 reading taken 100 years ago? What was the basis of those readings?

I'll also drop the attitude in my posts with you.

 

[DiveCon]

If you really believe that, your argument is moot.

Any answers to my questions regarding meteorology, or are you still using google?

Do you know what "parts per million" means?

See, when these climate "Experts" talk about CO2 being 380 or 425 it's parts per million, meaning its all but a rounding error.

I do know PPM, and it's an important part of the greenhouse effect. Some scientists take readings at different locations around the world, so the measurements are a bit different sometimes.

If you measure CO2 at the top of a mountain versus at a sea shore, chances are, your seashore has more CO2 in the sample

wouldnt that conclude they have incomplete data?

 

[Alan Partridge]

Do you know what "parts per million" means?

See, when these climate "Experts" talk about CO2 being 380 or 425 it's parts per million, meaning its all but a rounding error.

I do know PPM, and it's an important part of the greenhouse effect. Some scientists take readings at different locations around the world, so the measurements are a bit different sometimes.

If you measure CO2 at the top of a mountain versus at a sea shore, chances are, your seashore has more CO2 in the sample

wouldnt that conclude they have incomplete data?

No, that would conclude that they sampled the air at all possible locations, thereby creating a complete data record.

 

[DiveCon]

I do know PPM, and it's an important part of the greenhouse effect. Some scientists take readings at different locations around the world, so the measurements are a bit different sometimes.

If you measure CO2 at the top of a mountain versus at a sea shore, chances are, your seashore has more CO2 in the sample

wouldnt that conclude they have incomplete data?

No, that would conclude that they sampled the air at all possible locations, thereby creating a complete data record.

but they are comparing data that are not equal
and they have very little data when you compare it to the age of the earth
and how much trust do you have in the data collected 100 years ago vs the data collected today?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you really believe that, your argument is moot.

Any answers to my questions regarding meteorology, or are you still using google?

Do you know what "parts per million" means?

See, when these climate "Experts" talk about CO2 being 380 or 425 it's parts per million, meaning its all but a rounding error.

Good God! You are even dumber than I thought. Do you have the slightest idea of what those ppm mean when they get low enough for the oceans to freeze almost to the equator? It has happened in the past. Or when they are high enough for the poles to warm to the point that there are aligators on the shore of the Arctic Ocean? That happened during the PETM.

Here is a graph that shows the growth in CO2 in this century. It also shows how the yearly increased is accelerating.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Or when they are high enough for the poles to warm to the point that there are aligators on the shore of the Arctic Ocean? That happened during the PETM.

OMFG!!!

Do you realize what that means?????

Why it can only mean that the SUV is far older than we ever suspected!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you really believe that, your argument is moot.

Any answers to my questions regarding meteorology, or are you still using google?

Do you know what "parts per million" means?

See, when these climate "Experts" talk about CO2 being 380 or 425 it's parts per million, meaning its all but a rounding error.

Good God! You are even dumber than I thought. Do you have the slightest idea of what those ppm mean when they get low enough for the oceans to freeze almost to the equator? It has happened in the past. Or when they are high enough for the poles to warm to the point that there are aligators on the shore of the Arctic Ocean? That happened during the PETM.

Here is a graph that shows the growth in CO2 in this century. It also shows how the yearly increased is accelerating.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Is this you trying to help the AGW cause? Because you chart shows a "Rise" from 380 to 390 PARTS PER MILLION.

That's an increase of 10 PARTS PER MILLION.

That's called a "rounding error"