NASA ignores the genius of Anthony Watts and will launch 1/2 billion dollar CO2 Satt.

[madinsomniac]

I am saying that its unrealistic to get an accurate reading using this method... if you read into this further you will see they are actually doing this for generalities, because of a lot of iissues.. first is that laser diode readings are incredibly voltage sensitive... well most analyzer types are. it causes analyzer drift. several factors account cause changes... from as simple as dirt on a lens, to temperature changes, to pressure changes (which in this case aren't likely to be happening in a closed environment) to actual changes in voltages from degradation of electronics, ect. To remedy this readings have to be constantly checked against a standard and the voltage readings adjusted. its not a constant. they are doing marvelous things with cells for calibration instead of actual verified gas standards, but I haven't seen a model that doesn't have a pretty good +/- on it yet and that's when testing gas in a reaction cell that's a few inches long... we are talking about a laser reading miles in length. Moreover its been standard practice in some previous projects like this (though I do not know about this one exactly yet) to use expected readings to calibrate rather than known concentrations, in other cases there was a simple expectation that the readings would stay stable, which over time, they do not.

We are talking about not removing interferants before testing... other things will reflect on the same bandwidth. For that reason for accurate readings down here, gas is typically either dried by dropping out moisture or by diluting it with known quantities of dry air that renders the moisture insignificant. What they are doing is going to give general numbers... which would be fine if they were reading a couple % Co2... but they are looking for numbers in the low parts per million... that's why you see the numbers always given at a nice round 400 ppm or 200 ppm, I have an issue with using tech that isn't as precise as the data they will be using it to validate needs it to be.

I just think too many are taking data pushed out by this kind of method and assuming its accurate to a minute level because "NASA" did it... there are limits to what we can read. Rules and regs oftentimes utterly ignore this, and many scientific studies are done with instruments reading below their MDL. its just not as accurate as we need for the levels it is at. legitimately bias adjusting it could realistically be totally changing the data based on a few rounded percentages of something like moisture, which isn't going to be exact anyhow. Its fairly accurate, but as I keep telling you, the world is a very complex chemistry equation. its not like testing in a lab, and its not even as easy as testing in a confined space. there are far more things to account for

 

[PoloMalo43]

Something about climate expert Al Gore saying ten years ago that the polar ice caps would be melted by now rings hollow to me.

Well you'd better check your bell because last time I checked Al Gore was a professor, before that a politician.

 

[madinsomniac]

http://www.sesnews.org/index.php?q=NewEPA Foir the record, this is the org I typically interact with on these matters. its an EPA offshoot, founded by the people who wrote most of the original air pollution rules to make sure that air tests are performed correctly, legally, and safely. Have a couple of your experts sign up for their tests... several thousand pages of methods and regs and other fantastic minutia to make sure we are telling the epa just exactly what is really in the air we breathe and what all the eveil companies (and some are) lol are putting into our environment

And yes I have to be certified in a kajillion testing methods, and know 8 billion inane equations and keep my lackeys from blowing themselves or others up on some occasions. I have to know whats acceptable when testing for what reg... there can be a dozen tests for the same thing and each must be done differently depending where you are testing and what the process is that produces it. If I am determining moisture content for, say, a flow test I can use basic wet bulb/dry bulb methods, but for a CO2 test adjustment I would have to run an actual moisture train because you must be more accurate for that kind of thing

 

[Confluence]

Just a few highlighted words demonstrate several key issues:
1) science has not yet understood these sinks
2) science has not yet quantified these sinks
3) models with unknown variables cannot be correct or utilized to demonstrate proof of anything
4) unknowns, like carbon sinks these NASA guys hope to identify, could be so dominant and/or complex as to render any attempts to understand and predict them almost impossible
5) the admission of the existence of unknowns clearly underlines uncertainty in understanding C02 and its role in the earth and the atmosphere
6) anyone pretending to understand the nature of CO2 and its role in the earth and the atmosphere must foolish, misguided or fraudulent.

The existence of this search for knowledge by NASA is a clear admission that science doesn't understand some/many variables of CO2 and thusly cannot use same for any.....real science.

When Polo comes around and says this isn't true, she should then state exactly and precisely what is known about CO2 and attempt to explain why NASA would expend such resources on a known thing. Either NASA is just wasting $500 Million or they don't have a good understanding of this CO2 stuff.
Which one is it Pollo?

You missed an easy one Pollo. Please enlighten.

 

[madinsomniac]

I have a great idea. on a national level, Lets sit down, agree on a timeline, agree on every standardized test method to use, what adjustments will be made and what raw data will be gathered. Let both sides make their cases right now, Then lets have everyone vote on it. Keep records of how everyone voted and make them public knowledge. If it doesn't pass and after a period of time the data shows beyond a shadow of a doubt MMGW is real, then those who voted against it will be financially responsible for all of the needed fixes including city relocations, but if it passes and doesn't pan out and this was forced for nefarious reasons, then the other side is forced to reimburse the country for everything it cost in regulations and lost business over the same period... you can also abstain... id just be curious to know which side's scientists would abstain the most...

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Well you'd better check your bell because last time I checked Al Gore was a professor, before that a politician.

Are the polar ice caps melted yet?

 

[Steeltime]

What your saying doesn't make any sense to me, granted I don't build satellites.

Any intelligent communication befuddles you, since you obviously lack even basic reading comprehension.

"Your saying" is a reference to the possessive of the pronoun "you," and thereby refers to a quotation or phrase belonging to or made by the person cited.

"You're saying" is the proper usage in context, meaning a contraction of "You are."

You make fun of Watt for "dropping out of college," yet you exhibit the limited language skills of one who earned a GED. I am confident that you have a very limited education, and work for minimum wage at a convenience store. Your (see how I used the word here?) grammatical errors on basic terms such as "you're" vs. "your" support my contention.

Please, for the love of God, if you want to make fun of somebody else's education, then follow basic rules of language use and grammar. I know for a fact that you will be unable to do so, stemming from your (see? SEE? This is the proper word here, since it's [whoa - a contraction - did you see that??] possessive, and not a contraction of "you are") very limited intellect and language skills.

Further, you have joined two independent clauses with a comma. That usage is not standard English, since commas do not join two independent clauses. Only conjunctions (and, but, for, or, nor, etc.) can join independent clauses. In the future, use a semi-colon to connect the independent clauses, or use a conjunction in place of a comma. The error of using a comma to join two independent clauses is something known as a "comma splice." I learned that rule in 9th grade, at age 14, in 1975. You have now been schooled on this principle of English grammar.

Be forewarned - I will cite the numerous, embarrassing language and grammatical mistakes you make for the next several weeks, to point out the idiocy of your criticism of the intellect of other Steeler Nation board members.

You're welcome.

 

[Spike]

Are the polar ice caps melted yet?

Didn't you hear? - Algore predicted the polar bears would all be drowned by now - so they must not exist!

ha ha - anybody believing anything this charlatan says is an even bigger fool than him.

The fact is the earth's climate changes over thousands of years - always has and always will - regardless of humans.



Research points to abrupt and widespread climate shift in the Sahara 5,000 years ago

The inability of climate models to reproduce the magnitude of wet conditions in North Africa 6,000 years ago

As recently as 5,000 years ago, the Sahara—today a vast desert in northern Africa, spanning more than 3.5 million square miles—was a verdant landscape, with sprawling vegetation and numerous lakes. Ancient cave paintings in the region depict hippos in watering holes, and roving herds of elephants and giraffes—a vibrant contrast with today's barren, inhospitable terrain.

The Sahara's "green" era, known as the African Humid Period, likely lasted from 11,000 to 5,000 years ago, and is thought to have ended abruptly, with the region drying back into desert within a span of one to two centuries.

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-abrupt-widespread-climate-shift-sahara.html

---------------------------------------


Algore - proof! ...ancient SUV's caused Africa to turn brown!

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

By Confluence " Either NASA is just wasting $500 Million or they don't have a good understanding of this CO2 stuff." This is a trick question because the answer is both.

 

[ark steel]

That does sound like it should be an "and" in there instead of an "or".

 

[Superman]

****...a $500 million satellite? that's like 5 vacays for Bomma.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

****...a $500 million satellite? that's like 5 vacays for Bomma.

I'm sure Bomma would sacrifice 5 vaycays to help save the planet. Errrrrr......

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Something about your claims of having knowledge in this field just rang very hollow to me.

Perhaps then you should just stop? No one here buys into the religion and the myth of global warming, but you. No one here is going to jump into that Jim Jones Religion either or convert because of you. You're not endearing in the least. And now, when Mad has repeatedly taken you to the woodshed on this topic using 'hands on' experience, knowledge, and plain common logic, your defense is "it rang hollow to me?" Of course, because it doesn't support your religion.

He has written War & Peace to explain to you how the data is corrupt, has been corrupted and will be corrupt going forward, how things are done on the ground. And you "attempt" to refute him by posting links, then criticizing anyone else who posts links to the contrary.

You're like Baghdad Bob - telling the world you're winning the war when you don't realize how badly you're being beaten day after day.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid PoloElfie.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Any intelligent communication befuddles you, since you obviously lack even basic reading comprehension.

"Your saying" is a reference to the possessive of the pronoun "you," and thereby refers to a quotation or phrase belonging to or made by the person cited.

"You're saying" is the proper usage in context, meaning a contraction of "You are."

You make fun of Watt for "dropping out of college," yet you exhibit the limited language skills of one who earned a GED. I am confident that you have a very limited education, and work for minimum wage at a convenience store. Your (see how I used the word here?) grammatical errors on basic terms such as "you're" vs. "your" support my contention.

Please, for the love of God, if you want to make fun of somebody else's education, then follow basic rules of language use and grammar. I know for a fact that you will be unable to do so, stemming from your (see? SEE? This is the proper word here, since it's [whoa - a contraction - did you see that??] possessive, and not a contraction of "you are") very limited intellect and language skills.

Further, you have joined two independent clauses with a comma. That usage is not standard English, since commas do not join two independent clauses. Only conjunctions (and, but, for, or, nor, etc.) can join independent clauses. In the future, use a semi-colon to connect the independent clauses, or use a conjunction in place of a comma. The error of using a comma to join two independent clauses is something known as a "comma splice." I learned that rule in 9th grade, at age 14, in 1975. You have now been schooled on this principle of English grammar.

Be forewarned - I will cite the numerous, embarrassing language and grammatical mistakes you make for the next several weeks, to point out the idiocy of your criticism of the intellect of other Steeler Nation board members.

You're welcome.

That's what you're left with grammar and spelling? I'm not writing a thesis it's a message board. You actually think I don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'? I think you tried this tactic before with quote and quotation.

Where have you heard anyone say ' Great movie quotation'? lol.... I don't believe you were in school in 1975..more like 1945

What's next, who and whom? Maybe the proper way to use 'hopefully' in a sentence?

Phone bills and foot lockers for those that don't have a case, and can't handle the truth. Truly pathologically pathetic.

 

[CoolieMan]

That's what you're left with grammar and spelling? I'm not writing a thesis it's a message board. You actually think I don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'? I think you tried this tactic before with quote and quotation.

Where have you heard anyone say ' Great movie quotation'? lol.... I don't believe you were in school in 1975..more like 1945

What's next, who and whom? Maybe the proper way to use 'hopefully' in a sentence?

Phone bills and foot lockers for those that don't have a case, and can't handle the truth. Truly pathologically pathetic.

yes you are........

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

That's what you're left with grammar and spelling? I'm not writing a thesis it's a message board. You actually think I don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'? I think you tried this tactic before with quote and quotation.

Where have you heard anyone say ' Great movie quotation'? lol.... I don't believe you were in school in 1975..more like 1945

What's next, who and whom? Maybe the proper way to use 'hopefully' in a sentence?

Phone bills and foot lockers for those that don't have a case, and can't handle the truth. Truly pathologically pathetic.

Polo, we expect a better rebuttal from you than that. That was your weakest yet. Where's the black accent? The sleeping with your sister attacks? The insults on intelligence? Please, be your normal, insulting, arrogant, condescending, uneducated self. We await.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Polo, we expect a better rebuttal from you than that. That was your weakest yet. Where's the black accent? The sleeping with your sister attacks? The insults on intelligence? Please, be your normal, insulting, arrogant, condescending, uneducated self. We await.

Sure as soon as you answer any of the questions I've asked of you, or rebutt any of the points I made after you posted nonsense rooted in your dumbassery.

Anytime.

 

[Rod Farva]

Sure as soon as you answer any of the questions I've asked of you, or rebutt any of the points I made after you posted nonsense rooted in your dumbassery.

Anytime.

Now that's ******* rich!

 

[Steeltime]

That's what you're left with grammar and spelling? I'm not writing a thesis it's a message board. You actually think I don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'? I think you tried this tactic before with quote and quotation.

Where have you heard anyone say ' Great movie quotation'? lol.... I don't believe you were in school in 1975..more like 1945

What's next, who and whom? Maybe the proper way to use 'hopefully' in a sentence?

You're (see what I did there?) the poster who denigrates the intellect of others, and professes your own genius - so yes, I would hope you had mastered basic language skills.

You haven't. Your (see this use?) claim that you know standard English but simply cannot be bothered to it fails to convince me. and is not a legitimate excuse for your repeated failure to use standard English.

Since you are a self-proclaimed genius, it should be within your abilities to use standard English. Yet you don't. That is for one reason - you lack the knowledge to do so.

Yet you insist that you are far more intelligent than I, though the evidence shows very plainly that I can follow basic rules of writing and grammar, and you can't.

The conclusion, therefore, is that you have less language skills and knowledge of standard English than someone you insist lacks intelligence. The reasonable conclusion from these undeniable truths is that you have less intellect than someone you describe as stupid.

Do you need me to explain this point in simpler terms?

 

[Confluence]

Do you need me to explain this point in simpler terms?

 

[PoloMalo43]

You're (see what I did there?) the poster who denigrates the intellect of others, and professes your own genius - so yes, I would hope you had mastered basic language skills.

You haven't. Your (see this use?) claim that you know standard English but simply cannot be bothered to it fails to convince me. and is not a legitimate excuse for your repeated failure to use standard English.

Since you are a self-proclaimed genius, it should be within your abilities to use standard English. Yet you don't. That is for one reason - you lack the knowledge to do so.

Yet you insist that you are far more intelligent than I, though the evidence shows very plainly that I can follow basic rules of writing and grammar, and you can't.

The conclusion, therefore, is that you have less language skills and knowledge of standard English than someone you insist lacks intelligence. The reasonable conclusion from these undeniable truths is that you have less intellect than someone you describe as stupid.

Do you need me to explain this point in simpler terms?

Phone bills and foot lockers, and the ad hominem attack from confluence.....truly sad to see. NOT!


Well I was wrong about you making it out of the 4th grade as evidenced below. You do love the strawman steeltime.

Care to rebut any of the arguments on how data is homogenized to smooth bias? You know the answer you wanted, and I gave.

Maybe John Christy needs a rim job...or wait...today is the 4th of July shouldn't you guys be out enjoying fireworks, or maybe jerking off while playing with a Reagan blow up doll?

 

[hamster]

Maybe John Christy needs a rim job...or wait...today is the 4th of July shouldn't you guys be out enjoying fireworks, or maybe jerking off while playing with a Reagan blow up doll?

Your hate and bigotry cloud your ability to reason. But keep posting the clown car video, because at some point, folks here will realize how clever it is, instead of the signature of dumb-assery you have unwittingly created for yourself.

 

[Hypocycloids]

Maybe John Christy needs a rim job...or wait...today is the 4th of July shouldn't you guys be out enjoying fireworks, or maybe jerking off while playing with a Reagan blow up doll?

Says the clown that still has an Obama hope and change sticker on his bumper.

 

[Steeltime]

Well I was wrong

You usually are.

Care to rebut any of the arguments on how data is homogenized to smooth bias?

"How data ARE homogenized."

"Data" is the plural of the word "datum."

Yet again, FAIL on basic language use.

Oh, and "homogenizing" temperature data does not have a substantial effect on the data?? And potentially corrupt the data? Yeah, that's rich. Data homogenizing like this, you mean?

Our analysis shows that data homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature, and this necessitates a careful evaluation and adjustment for urban biases before the data are applied in analyses of local and regional climate change.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0894-0

"Data homogenization" like that, you mean?

Or how about this adjustment to ground-based temperature readings in Australia?

The "normalized" data from IPCC 4 for Northern Australia:

The raw data for all 222 stations:

Finally, a graph showing the raw temperature readings compared to the "adjusted" (a.k.a., homogenized) data:

So let's review:

Polo's language use: F
Polo's critical thinking: F
Polo's credibility in discussing AGW alarmists and homogenizing data: F
Polo's use of data: F
Polo's use of the word data: F
Seeing Polo get embarrassed yet again on her favorite topic: Priceless.

 

[Rod Farva]

Heh-heh.....