Pretty. Disturbing.

[Billy_Bob]

The U.S. uses more and pollutes less. View attachment 34245

Seems like that is also supported by the NASA graphic AVG-JOE included in the OP. I noticed the only interruption in the red line across the top was variation around North America.

.

The model output and red line are propaganda points and are essentially meaningless unless your intent is to drive fear. Alarmism... so predictable..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I just thought it was a cool graphic that is at least as reflective of industrialization as is the one that shows all the lights on earth at night. And I find it telling that the emissions are so heavily concentrated in the northern hemisphere.

Incorrect: The equatorial distribution is equal.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So carbon dioxide isn't uniformly distributed in the atmosphere?

I swear I was told that it was.

That is the mantra from may of the atmospherics people. but it clearly is not evenly distributed because physical measurements show it can vary by over 100ppm.

You stupid ****, the color spread is from 377 to 395, a spread of 18 ppm. Billy Boob, you are such a stupid liar that even the deniars should distance themselves from you.

Let me see...

I post facts supported by evidence and you call names...

I WIN!

 

[BlackSand]

The model output and red line are propaganda points and are essentially meaningless unless your intent is to drive fear. Alarmism... so predictable..

My intent was to make an observation regarding the data presented. I have enough experience with data to understand the proper vetting process if necessary. It wasn't necessary in regards to my comment because the comment could stand alone as a simple observation and not part of any agenda.

.

 

[Mr. H.]

The U.S. uses more and pollutes less. View attachment 34245

Seems like that is also supported by the NASA graphic AVG-JOE included in the OP. I noticed the only interruption in the red line across the top was variation around North America.

.

The model output and red line are propaganda points and are essentially meaningless unless your intent is to drive fear. Alarmism... so predictable..

Relax.

Here- have a nice warm cup of SHUT THE **** UP.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The model output and red line are propaganda points and are essentially meaningless unless your intent is to drive fear. Alarmism... so predictable..

My intent was to make an observation regarding the data presented. I have enough experience with data to understand the proper vetting process if necessary. It wasn't necessary in regards to my comment because the comment could stand alone as a simple observation and not part of any agenda.

.

The COLORS OF THE VISUALIZATION ARE WRONG... They give the illusion that there is a major problem by how they colored the levels of increase noting that 75% of the colors are red... You see it is all in the presentation of the evidence. You presented a scary scenario from a model and I presented empirical evidence.. Hmmmmmm..... What to believe..??

 

[Billy_Bob]

The U.S. uses more and pollutes less. View attachment 34245

Seems like that is also supported by the NASA graphic AVG-JOE included in the OP. I noticed the only interruption in the red line across the top was variation around North America.

.

The model output and red line are propaganda points and are essentially meaningless unless your intent is to drive fear. Alarmism... so predictable..

Relax.

Here- have a nice warm cup of SHUT THE **** UP.

CO2 is not pollution... If you feel it is, then stop polluting by exhaling it and lead by example..

 

[Iceweasel]

A video from 2006? They must have not wanted to scare us to death. Do they have videos from the 1880s we can compare it to?

 

[BlackSand]

The model output and red line are propaganda points and are essentially meaningless unless your intent is to drive fear. Alarmism... so predictable..

My intent was to make an observation regarding the data presented. I have enough experience with data to understand the proper vetting process if necessary. It wasn't necessary in regards to my comment because the comment could stand alone as a simple observation and not part of any agenda.

.

The COLORS OF THE VISUALIZATION ARE WRONG... They give the illusion that there is a major problem by how they colored the levels of increase noting that 75% of the colors are red... You see it is all in the presentation of the evidence. You presented a scary scenario from a model and I presented empirical evidence.. Hmmmmmm..... What to believe..??

Regardless your interpretation of the colors ... The graphic does show variation ... And you haven't provided anything towards my observation other than conjecture.

Thanks for offering your opinion of the data though.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The model output and red line are propaganda points and are essentially meaningless unless your intent is to drive fear. Alarmism... so predictable..

My intent was to make an observation regarding the data presented. I have enough experience with data to understand the proper vetting process if necessary. It wasn't necessary in regards to my comment because the comment could stand alone as a simple observation and not part of any agenda.

.

The COLORS OF THE VISUALIZATION ARE WRONG... They give the illusion that there is a major problem by how they colored the levels of increase noting that 75% of the colors are red... You see it is all in the presentation of the evidence. You presented a scary scenario from a model and I presented empirical evidence.. Hmmmmmm..... What to believe..??

Regardless your interpretation of the colors ... The graphic does show variation ... And you haven't provided anything towards my observation other than conjecture.

Thanks for offering your opinion of the data though.

.

Your MODEL is not empirical evidence... Thanks for playing..

 

[BlackSand]

The model output and red line are propaganda points and are essentially meaningless unless your intent is to drive fear. Alarmism... so predictable..

My intent was to make an observation regarding the data presented. I have enough experience with data to understand the proper vetting process if necessary. It wasn't necessary in regards to my comment because the comment could stand alone as a simple observation and not part of any agenda.

.

The COLORS OF THE VISUALIZATION ARE WRONG... They give the illusion that there is a major problem by how they colored the levels of increase noting that 75% of the colors are red... You see it is all in the presentation of the evidence. You presented a scary scenario from a model and I presented empirical evidence.. Hmmmmmm..... What to believe..??

Regardless your interpretation of the colors ... The graphic does show variation ... And you haven't provided anything towards my observation other than conjecture.

Thanks for offering your opinion of the data though.

.

Your MODEL is not empirical evidence... Thanks for playing..

Neither is your conjecture ... Come back and play any time and hope you have better luck.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The model output and red line are propaganda points and are essentially meaningless unless your intent is to drive fear. Alarmism... so predictable..

My intent was to make an observation regarding the data presented. I have enough experience with data to understand the proper vetting process if necessary. It wasn't necessary in regards to my comment because the comment could stand alone as a simple observation and not part of any agenda.

.

The COLORS OF THE VISUALIZATION ARE WRONG... They give the illusion that there is a major problem by how they colored the levels of increase noting that 75% of the colors are red... You see it is all in the presentation of the evidence. You presented a scary scenario from a model and I presented empirical evidence.. Hmmmmmm..... What to believe..??

Regardless your interpretation of the colors ... The graphic does show variation ... And you haven't provided anything towards my observation other than conjecture.

Thanks for offering your opinion of the data though.

.

Your MODEL is not empirical evidence... Thanks for playing..

Neither is your conjecture ... Come back and play any time and hope you have better luck.

.

You didn't read the paper that I linked. It used unadjusted empirical measurements. If that is your meaning of conjecture I will take it over your crayola splatter.

 

[BlackSand]

You didn't read the paper that I linked. It used unadjusted empirical measurements. If that is your meaning of conjecture I will take it over your crayola splatter.

The paper you provided didn't have anything to do with the observations I made about the graphic provided by NASA ... Nor did it provide a bridge to corresponding argument in regards to the variation.

What you decide to take as empirical data has nothing to do with your deciding to use your conjecture to bridge the separation between the data you choose and the data I was commenting on. If you would like to explain your ideas about the the variation I identified in the graphic ... Then that is fine. If all you have to offer is conjecture from an opposing source that doesn't address the data I was commenting on (the variation)... Then I have no use for it.

If you want to argue about it ... Find someone interested in your conjecture because I'm not.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Published on Nov 17, 2014
An ultra-high-resolution NASA computer model has given scientists a stunning new look at how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere travels around the globe.



All other points notwithstanding, including cost, producing less pollution is better, no?

`​

The highlighted is the reason we do not trust these people and their broken models. Models are not empirical evidence of anything.

But it got the desired effect of emotion going in you.. hence the word 'scary' and 'need' to stop it at all costs..

Use your dam head and quit falling for their propaganda aimed at feelings. Its just orchestrated misinformation. Until these fools can show me, using empirical evidence (observed), and they release their data methods and computer information so that it can be refuted or replicated the hype is just propaganda.

So what?

All other points notwithstanding, including cost, producing less pollution is better, no?

Perhaps, for you, it's best viewed as 'art'.

You mean no matter what the cost less pollution is better?

Answer: no.

 

[Spare_change]

While I have my doubts on GW I wouldn't mind seeing big oil companies make their record profits someday. But it won't happen in my lifetime..right now they have way too much influence on our gov't. I frankly don't trust one of them.

Based on what?