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

[Old Rocks]

We have a pretty complete record of CO2 content of the atmospere for thousands of years from glacial, and ice cap data in ice cores. For 650,000 years, the highest reading for CO2 was 300 ppm. Today, is between 380 and 390 ppm. The ice core data tracks well where it overlaps the recent period where we have been recording the amount. More importantly, the cores from the various locations track well with each other.

The fact that you come to argue without the slightest idea of the tools that we use to establish these numbers is indictutive of the seriousness you bring to the subject. You wish to make a staight forward scientific problem into a political football, and try to redefine reality by what you thing "ought to be", rather than the reality that the reasearch reveals.

 

[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

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.

The attitude is fine, I may shoot some back.

I'm a bit iffy on ancient air samples in ice cores. I wouldn't base any assumptions on those alone.

However, when you add in tree ring counts, that's a bit more accurate, since trees use the carbon in CO 2 to grow.

Also, in places where ancient lakes were known to be located, sediment cores are now being examined for pollen and flower detrius to see wht plants were living in the area, and from that information, conclude a range of CO2 levels in the troposhpere

 

[Old Rocks]

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!

 

[Alan Partridge]

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?

they are not comparing samples taken at the same time, they are using that complete record, make an weighted average of GHG, and compare that to historic samples.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

The attitude is fine, I may shoot some back.

I'm a bit iffy on ancient air samples in ice cores. I wouldn't base any assumptions on those alone.

However, when you add in tree ring counts, that's a bit more accurate, since trees use the carbon in CO 2 to grow.

Also, in places where ancient lakes were known to be located, sediment cores are now being examined for pollen and flower detrius to see wht plants were living in the area, and from that information, conclude a range of CO2 levels in the troposhpere

There are other proxies, based on isotope ratios, as you well know, of course. Yes, any and all data needs to be considered, however, the ice core data has stood up rather well.

 

[Old Rocks]

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"

It's called seasonal variation, you stupid ass.

 

[elvis]

Uh oh. Rockhead's depends are all in a bunch now.

 

[DiveCon]

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?

they are not comparing samples taken at the same time, they are using that complete record, make an weighted average of GHG, and compare that to historic samples.

but if 100 years ago they only tested in London, Paris, and Madrid
and today they are testing in over 300 cities and in rural areas as well
wont that make the older data less accurate and that the increase might not be as big as the data shows because they didnt test in enough sites?

 

[DiveCon]

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.

The attitude is fine, I may shoot some back.

I'm a bit iffy on ancient air samples in ice cores. I wouldn't base any assumptions on those alone.

However, when you add in tree ring counts, that's a bit more accurate, since trees use the carbon in CO 2 to grow.

Also, in places where ancient lakes were known to be located, sediment cores are now being examined for pollen and flower detrius to see wht plants were living in the area, and from that information, conclude a range of CO2 levels in the troposhpere

There are other proxies, based on isotope ratios, as you well know, of course. Yes, any and all data needs to be considered, however, the ice core data has stood up rather well.

except the ice core data can only give data for the areas where the ice is old enough
good luck finding old ice on the arctic ocean
or in the mediteranean

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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"

It's called seasonal variation, you stupid ass.

Let's do the math.

10% of 1,000,000 is 100,000
1% of 1,000,000 is 10,000
1/10 of 1% is 1,000
1/100 of 1% is 100
Why, 1/1000 of 1% is 10 PPM.

1/1000 of 1%.

Yeah, I may lose sleep over that tonight

 

[Alan Partridge]

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.

The attitude is fine, I may shoot some back.

I'm a bit iffy on ancient air samples in ice cores. I wouldn't base any assumptions on those alone.

However, when you add in tree ring counts, that's a bit more accurate, since trees use the carbon in CO 2 to grow.

Also, in places where ancient lakes were known to be located, sediment cores are now being examined for pollen and flower detrius to see wht plants were living in the area, and from that information, conclude a range of CO2 levels in the troposhpere

There are other proxies, based on isotope ratios, as you well know, of course. Yes, any and all data needs to be considered, however, the ice core data has stood up rather well.

Yeah, look at ancient coral beds, the more carbon in the atmosphere, the more carbon in the oceans, therefore more corals, larger sea insects, giant sea scorpions

 

[Alan Partridge]

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?

they are not comparing samples taken at the same time, they are using that complete record, make an weighted average of GHG, and compare that to historic samples.

but if 100 years ago they only tested in London, Paris, and Madrid
and today they are testing in over 300 cities and in rural areas as well
wont that make the older data less accurate and that the increase might not be as big as the data shows because they didnt test in enough sites?

I personally worldn't use any samples from London 100 years ago, too much soot and ash in the air.

Or any cities, those samples are mostlyunreliable, due to poor collection techniques, uninformed people doing the collections, etc.

Which is why scientists use mostly the non-human trapped samples. Takes a lot of the questionability out of it.

 

[DiveCon]

they are not comparing samples taken at the same time, they are using that complete record, make an weighted average of GHG, and compare that to historic samples.

but if 100 years ago they only tested in London, Paris, and Madrid
and today they are testing in over 300 cities and in rural areas as well
wont that make the older data less accurate and that the increase might not be as big as the data shows because they didnt test in enough sites?

I personally worldn't use any samples from London 100 years ago, too much soot and ash in the air.

Or any cities, those samples are mostlyunreliable, due to poor collection techniques, uninformed people doing the collections, etc.

Which is why scientists use mostly the non-human trapped samples. Takes a lot of the questionability out of it.

thats why i'm saying they dont have enough complete data to make the claims they do
not in comparision to the age of the earth
warming and cooling cycles have been happening regardless of what man has or hasnt done
and the data doesnt yet say that we have had any effect on it

 

[Meister]

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.

Your running rich today 'Rocks

 

[DiveCon]

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.

Your running rich today 'Rocks

rather ironic for old rocksinthehead to talk about someone elses IQ being low, isnt it?

 

[Meister]

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

Your running rich today 'Rocks

rather ironic for old rocksinthehead to talk about someone elses IQ being low, isnt it?

Yeah, that is what hit me about his post.

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's been cold here in NY. I left my SUV running all night, hopefully tomorrow well get about 70

you left it running all night?....well Frank expect a visit from Robert Kennedy JR.....

 

[DiveCon]

It's been cold here in NY. I left my SUV running all night, hopefully tomorrow well get about 70

you left it running all night?....well Frank expect a visit from Robert Kennedy JR.....

flying in on his private jet and driving up with a convoy of about 10 SUV's

 

[Harry Dresden]

I can hear the crickets...

thats because you passed out on your front lawn....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I spent years sniffing out phony analysis and the MMGW crowd is at the top of my list

Oh, so I'm talking to a REAL expert...not that I'm skeptical, but please list your degrees...

Why do I need a degree in Climatology to know bullshit? My degrees are in economic and finance

your talking to a guy Frank who belives Ted Kennedy had very little to do with Mary Jo's death....and he feels the Bloated One is one of the BEST humanity has to offer....