General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
dont forget your hat

So...the IPCC is a scientific organization?

Does your ignorance know no bounds?
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 02-25-2010, 09:11 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1396  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Abazaba
 
Abazaba's Avatar
 
Old 02-25-2010, 09:29 PM Abazaba is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1397  

Jason
 
I wonder why nobody ever questioned the IR measurements of CO2 from Mauna Kea that were shockingly consistent, especially when compared to the variance from the chemical measure. Kind of similar to how the ice core and tree ring data don't show the Medieval Warming Period in their charts when that was well established by measurements globally at the time. Guess it doesn't matter what was measured at the time when the IPCC finds a scientist using a measurement that gives them a picture of the last 30 years they like.

Note: Chemical measurement method has been show to be within 3% accuracy.
Old 02-25-2010, 10:04 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1398  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
I can't decide which is the more ridiculous argument...that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or that CO2 levels aren't what thousands of indepedent atmospheric scientists around the world say it is.
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 02-27-2010, 07:46 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1399  

Jason
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
I can't decide which is the more ridiculous argument...that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or that CO2 levels aren't what thousands of indepedent atmospheric scientists around the world say it is.

Actually it isn't what thousands of independent scientists around the world say it is... it is what one method of measurement at one observation station says it is.
Old 02-27-2010, 11:04 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1400  

Gibonius
 
What exactly is your point here Jason?

I could go measure the atmospheric CO2 level myself if I wanted to. It's not really all that hard to do with modern equipment, and many many people have checked it. That graph shows that the Mauna Lea and Antarctic ice core data matches up almost perfectly, and you want to say the varying varying graph is the correct one?

Where does that information even come from, and what exactly is being shown by the five year average? Who was recording CO2 data chemically in 1812, or is this more proxy data? How would anyone realistically expect that atmospheric CO2 is going to vary by a factor of 2 in ten year as that plot shows?
Old 02-28-2010, 09:14 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1401  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Actually it isn't what thousands of independent scientists around the world say it is... it is what one method of measurement at one observation station says it is.

LOL. If you actually believe that that's the only source of atmospheric CO2 values you are one sick, mentally disturbed person.
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 02-28-2010, 01:14 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1402  

Jason
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
What exactly is your point here Jason?

I could go measure the atmospheric CO2 level myself if I wanted to. It's not really all that hard to do with modern equipment, and many many people have checked it. That graph shows that the Mauna Lea and Antarctic ice core data matches up almost perfectly, and you want to say the varying varying graph is the correct one?

Where does that information even come from, and what exactly is being shown by the five year average? Who was recording CO2 data chemically in 1812, or is this more proxy data? How would anyone realistically expect that atmospheric CO2 is going to vary by a factor of 2 in ten year as that plot shows?
Varying by a factor of 2 makes more sense considering the variability in actual CO2 production and absorption every year. Do you really think that back in the 90s when all of the oil fires were burning in Iraq that it wouldn't even make a blip in the level of global CO2? Or all the various volcanic eruptions over the years?
And the data comes from thousands of measurements at different locations. They ALL showed that variability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
LOL. If you actually believe that that's the only source of atmospheric CO2 values you are one sick, mentally disturbed person.
It's the only source that gets used and reported anymore for current levels. The ice core data is the only source that gets used anymore for historical data. It's the same problem as using only tree ring data and ice cores for historical temperatures. That's the point.
Old 02-28-2010, 01:36 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1403  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Varying by a factor of 2 makes more sense considering the variability in actual CO2 production and absorption every year. Do you really think that back in the 90s when all of the oil fires were burning in Iraq that it wouldn't even make a blip in the level of global CO2? Or all the various volcanic eruptions over the years?
Actually, yeah, I wouldn't expect the GLOBAL levels of CO2 to vary by all that much. The atmosphere is enormous, and there's an enormous amount of CO2 in it. We're talking hundreds of trillions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even something like the oil fires or a volcanic eruption is a tiny blip against that background. You're talking a difference of seven orders of magnitude or so there. It doesn't make any sense to see hundreds of trillions of tons of CO2 appearing or disappearing in the span of a few years.
Quote:
And the data comes from thousands of measurements at different locations. They ALL showed that variability.
I'm really going to need to get linked to a source here so I can tell what you're talking about without some third hand interpretation.
Old 02-28-2010, 02:08 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1404  

Jason
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Actually, yeah, I wouldn't expect the GLOBAL levels of CO2 to vary by all that much. The atmosphere is enormous, and there's an enormous amount of CO2 in it. We're talking hundreds of trillions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even something like the oil fires or a volcanic eruption is a tiny blip against that background. You're talking a difference of seven orders of magnitude or so there. It doesn't make any sense to see hundreds of trillions of tons of CO2 appearing or disappearing in the span of a few years.

I'm really going to need to get linked to a source here so I can tell what you're talking about without some third hand interpretation.

Well I use my university access to look at research articles, but those aren't really publicly available for free... I'll see if I can find something free for you to look at it.

Edit: Short Version PDF of the paper... still looking to see if I can find the full one.

Last edited by Jason; 02-28-2010 at 02:31 PM..
Old 02-28-2010, 02:23 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1405  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Well I use my university access to look at research articles, but those aren't really publicly available for free... I'll see if I can find something free for you to look at it.

Edit: Short Version PDF of the paper... still looking to see if I can find the full one.

I have access to basically all journals.
Old 02-28-2010, 03:55 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1406  

Jason
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
I have access to basically all journals.

Well then you can look it up. Beck & Freiburg from 2006.
The short version also listed citations for the past measurements.
Old 02-28-2010, 04:03 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1407  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Well I use my university access to look at research articles, but those aren't really publicly available for free... I'll see if I can find something free for you to look at it.

Edit: Short Version PDF of the paper... still looking to see if I can find the full one.

His methodology makes basically no sense there. He took dozens of different studies, by different authors in different locations, using different techniques, and splices them all together as if they're contiguous and unquestionably accurate data. Why would we expect that to be more accurate than modern spectroscopic techniques? The conclusion could quite easily be "These old studies got it wrong," but because there's an agenda, it becomes "The old studies are right (despite not actually being linked or calibrated by any modern evidence), and the modern stuff is wrong." In fact, this data has been widely known for a long time, he just took the opposite (and pretty much certainly wrong) conclusion.

Really, there's no reason to doubt the modern readings of CO2 levels. Anyone with access to a basic IR spectrometer can check this stuff for themselves.
Old 02-28-2010, 04:09 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1408  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
It's the only source that gets used and reported anymore for current levels. The ice core data is the only source that gets used anymore for historical data. It's the same problem as using only tree ring data and ice cores for historical temperatures. That's the point.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong Wrong.

I know at least 4 other researchers at my local University that directly measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere and have never been anywhere near that location.

And nice job contradicting yourself. You say ice core data is the only source of historical data then in the next sentence you talk about tree rings. You're also forgetting about corals, coccoliths, oysters, fossils, lake sediments, ocean sediments, and the other 3 or 4 temperature/CO2 proxies I can't remember at the moment.

Face it, you don't know anything about the current state of climate science.
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 03-01-2010, 08:46 AM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1409  

Jason
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong Wrong.

I know at least 4 other researchers at my local University that directly measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere and have never been anywhere near that location.

And nice job contradicting yourself. You say ice core data is the only source of historical data then in the next sentence you talk about tree rings. You're also forgetting about corals, coccoliths, oysters, fossils, lake sediments, ocean sediments, and the other 3 or 4 temperature/CO2 proxies I can't remember at the moment.

Face it, you don't know anything about the current state of climate science.

Look at the majority of reports from the last decade on the climate. The vast majority of them ignore any CO2 sources outside of the "flat" ones from the ice core data. The same with temperature. The vast majority use the "new" tree ring data that doesn't even show the well documented medieval warming period. Variability doesn't fit into their scheme of flipping out over a 390ppm CO2 level. We have CO2 levels measured well above 400 in the last 100 and 200 years that get conveniently ignored. The medieval warming period had temperatures measured AT THE TIME well warmer than our current temperatures. Or you can just ignore the scientific facts and just go with what the IPCC tells you is truth. Your choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Really, there's no reason to doubt the modern readings of CO2 levels. Anyone with access to a basic IR spectrometer can check this stuff for themselves.
I don't doubt the modern readings. I am sure the measurements taken what must be daily in Mauna Kea are accurate for the levels in Mauna Kea. I do however challenge the assumptive measurements from the ice core and tree ring data, because they do not fit with accurate measurements taken from other methods. Tree rings have far too much variance for a lot of reasons, including rainfall, temperature, CO2 level, sunlight, etc. Ice core data probably suffers from the same level of variation which is why they don't show the real levels.

I also challenge using the measured temperatures globally and comparing them to past temperatures because of the change in terrain around the observation stations as well as the removal of nearly every station that would report cooler temperatures that are still included in the historical data before the 90s.
Old 03-01-2010, 02:42 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1410  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.