It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

page: 19
50
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Dr. Windsor, Dr Saul formally at FIT is a start.

Dr. Lazarus is still at Florida Institute of Technology. Would you like an email address?

All PHDs, experts in the field of atmospheric chemistry.

That is a start. Plenty of legitimate sources in this thread for the 280ppm starting CO2 count. I will not cite a source for someone who is too lazy to read through this thread or google the numbers themselves.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Dr. Windsor, Dr Saul formally at FIT is a start.

Dr. Lazarus is still at Florida Institute of Technology. Would you like an email address?

All PHDs, experts in the field of atmospheric chemistry.

That is a start. Plenty of legitimate sources in this thread for the 280ppm starting CO2 count. I will not cite a source for someone who is too lazy to read through this thread or google the numbers themselves.


I want to know if YOU know what they are and how they are different from each other.

You are crying, "Science! Science! Science deniers!" but not actually demonstrating that you know what you are talking about. I have read most of those articles and actually understand what the data is demonstrating and why the numbers they derive from it are considered valid or not for projections.

But the question is, do you?

-FBB
edit on 1-7-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

So you are telling me that the 120ppm rise in CO2 concentrations over the few hundred years is in NOT good science?

280ppm to 400ppm is a 120ppm difference.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Let us know when it hits 1100ppm, then it may actually change the environment, so far nothing really has been observed.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Are you telling we have not observed any changes on Earth as a result of human activity?



Clearly activity is causing great harm to this planet.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Actually 550PPM. Well start to totally lose glaciers over 600 PPM. It's gonna be awesome.

While it is logarithmic is is very potent in stages up to about 1200 PPM.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

So you are telling me that the 120ppm rise in CO2 concentrations over the few hundred years is in NOT good science?

280ppm to 400ppm is a 120ppm difference.


Science trivia, unless you want to be a science amateur.

All experimental measurements are defined as having Experimental Error. If the experimental error is not included, the data is thrown out. For that reason numbers are usually expressed in Scientific Notation. Scientific notation writes the digits known to be correct and an additional digit which cannot be completely accurate. The digits are multiplied by a power of ten to give the correct magnitude.

280 appears to have two significant figures. 280 expressed in scientific notation is 2.8 x 10 ^ 2. Scientific notation tells the reader whether the last zero was measured or whether the last measured digit was the 8 and the zero is only a place holder.

280 measured to the ones place would look like 2.80 x 10 ^ 2.

The experimental error would typically be + (plus or minus) 10 ppm but could be bigger + 40 ppm, especially if the data has been averaged.

So the CO2 level probably really changed some where between 440 - 240 = 200 ppm and 360 - 320 = 40 ppm.

Maybe [CO2]atmos has only changed 14%.



edit on 2-7-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Cute little play with numbers. The science denialist will probably praise you for it. Please take some classes in statistical analysis before trying to present some fuzzy math as fact.

There has been an over 40% increase in CO2 concentrations in just a few hundred years.

FACT!

280ppm of CO2 before the industrial revolution is the number accepted by experts in this field all over the world.

400ppm is where we are at now.


edit on 2-7-2014 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

What if CO2 in correlation with temperature is irrelevant at a certain point?

You rely only on CO2 PPM as your smoking gun argument in all of these threads. I am sure your excuse over the next 50 years when the global temperature flat lines, or falls will be of great entertainment.

Will it be that the ocean is absorbing all the heat like it is now?

Lovely, thanks ocean! The same ocean that we admit we know NOTHING about compared to even our own moon.

Totes give those scientists my full 100% trust on their ocean statistics bros. Totes awesomes.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

Can you kindly explain to this board what my stance is on global warming? My smoking gun argument for what?

I do not blindly support global warming.

As a result of this extra CO2 the oceans all over the world are becoming more acidic...more science.

I know that I know nothing.

I do like to monitor our planet's vital signs.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Then how come you don't know the isotopic breakdown of the increased PPM?

a reply to: jrod



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I will demonstrate my knowledge of said isotopic breakdown after you demonstrate your Master ability to break down a simple CO2 residence time calculation.

What was your degree in again?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Ooohhhh okay...totes bro.

So you believe that we can accurately measure our oceans, yet we admit we know more about the moon than our oceans.

Got it.

Totes legit.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

We can measure the chemical make up of the ocean.

Carbonic acid is increasing too.

Dr. Windsor holds a PHD in Oceanography. I referenced him somewhere in this thread since I did kindly request sources for this kind of information.
edit on 2-7-2014 by jrod because: yo no soy una oveja



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

No we can't. We pretend we can, and have sheep who go along with it.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

Can't what?

Measuring the chemical make-up of our ocean is something mankind has been able to do for quite sometime.

Ground control to Euphem, can you read me?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

So we know more about the moon, but you believe we can accurately measure any aspect of our oceans...

kewl.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

We can collect a jar of water can chemically analyze it. We can also 'capture' said water from the deepest depths of the ocean with this miracle invention known as 'jar'.

Praise jar!!!

I think you are referring to the deep sea biology, topography, and maybe just maybe hidden secret squirrel bases in the deep blue abyss.

Do you have any sea time my friend?



edit on 2-7-2014 by jrod because:




posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Even though I was exactly like you 5 years ago, we will probably never agree on anything.

I respect your opinion, and realize you are an intelligent person based on your replies over various threads, but I feel you are intransigent overall.

I hope someday you can expand your criterion of AGW to at least theorize contrariwise to your tendentious faith of the unknown.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

I do not 'believe' in global warming as I think you are implying.

Like I wrote in a previous post, I like to monitor this planet's vital signs.

Where do you think I am missing the boat on this thread?
edit on 2-7-2014 by jrod because: 1



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join