If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Problem: Longest running study measuring CO2 levels shows historic highs. Solution: Stop funding the project   (usatoday.com) divider line 84
    More: Asinine, carbon dioxide, atmospheric carbon dioxide, climate change, big island of hawaii, Mauna Loa, measuring  
•       •       •

4468 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2014 at 6:05 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-19 05:02:11 PM
Randall Munroe just told us how to fix this problem, all it takes is a little extra soda consumption on out part.
 
2014-03-19 05:35:46 PM
Just curious, but wouldn't taking CO2 levels from the top of an active volcano be skewed by the volcano itself?
 
2014-03-19 06:10:05 PM
Why does it cost a million dollars a year to monitor CO2 levels?

I'm pretty sure they could hire someone - and pay for the equipment and such - for less than $2700/day.

Or are they using that million to pay for a whole lot of other things, and only actually spending a tiny fraction of that amount on something that used to be done by one guy, just for fun, with no real budget?
 
2014-03-19 06:10:58 PM
If you can't see it, it does not exist.

But you know how libs do it:

awesomegifs.com
 
2014-03-19 06:12:33 PM
See Oh Two killed my father!
 
2014-03-19 06:12:36 PM

timujin: Just curious, but wouldn't taking CO2 levels from the top of an active volcano be skewed by the volcano itself?


Short answer: No.
 
2014-03-19 06:15:39 PM
Your blog and your little stick figure drawings suck.
 
2014-03-19 06:16:23 PM

cirby: Why does it cost a million dollars a year to monitor CO2 levels?


lh3.ggpht.com
 
2014-03-19 06:16:26 PM

timujin: Just curious, but wouldn't taking CO2 levels from the top of an active volcano be skewed by the volcano itself?


No.  The volcano doesn't emit a lot of CO2, and IIRC they scrub data that's downwind or looks like a pulse of gas.
 
2014-03-19 06:18:00 PM

Ambitwistor: timujin: Just curious, but wouldn't taking CO2 levels from the top of an active volcano be skewed by the volcano itself?

No.  The volcano doesn't emit a lot of CO2, and IIRC they scrub data that's downwind or looks like a pulse of gas.


Better:   link.
 
2014-03-19 06:20:19 PM

hardinparamedic: timujin: Just curious, but wouldn't taking CO2 levels from the top of an active volcano be skewed by the volcano itself?

Short answer: No.


Um, I don't mean to be all nit-picky; but, that article is about "Do volcanos put out more co2 than humans?"; not " Are the CO2 readings at Mt. Mona Loa influenced by the fact that Mt. Mona Loa is an active volcano?".
 
2014-03-19 06:20:36 PM
Problem solved!  And cheaper than Kyoto!!
 
2014-03-19 06:25:14 PM
... which have absolutely have no correlation with increase in global temperature.

So, where do I collect the project money?
 
2014-03-19 06:25:23 PM

cirby: Why does it cost a million dollars a year to monitor CO2 levels?

I'm pretty sure they could hire someone - and pay for the equipment and such - for less than $2700/day.

Or are they using that million to pay for a whole lot of other things, and only actually spending a tiny fraction of that amount on something that used to be done by one guy, just for fun, with no real budget?


Because, silly, the senator who sponsored the grant had a nephew who needed a 6 figure job; without any of the requisite qualifications.
 
2014-03-19 06:28:15 PM
amytintera.com
 
2014-03-19 06:31:40 PM

cirby: Why does it cost a million dollars a year to monitor CO2 levels?

I'm pretty sure they could hire someone - and pay for the equipment and such - for less than $2700/day.

Or are they using that million to pay for a whole lot of other things, and only actually spending a tiny fraction of that amount on something that used to be done by one guy, just for fun, with no real budget?


No.
 
2014-03-19 06:32:37 PM
I want Biden, Obama, Pelosi and Reid to shut up. That .. accounts for at least 2/3
 
2014-03-19 06:38:59 PM

timujin: Just curious, but wouldn't taking CO2 levels from the top of an active volcano be skewed by the volcano itself?


From USGSOur studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO2 than sleeping ones do.

So I would think if you're too close it's gonna skew the measurement if you are trying to get an ambient reading.  Like taking a reading from the end of the tailpipe on a running car and thinking that's an accurate reading for the whole town.

Of coarse there is also this in the same article.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

So the fossil fuel CO2 emissions is the equivalent of 134 Kilauea equivalent volcanoes annually(using 2003 numbers).
 
2014-03-19 06:43:48 PM
Well what more can it tell us Subby? We know it's high. Now what? Put that money to use fixing the problem instead of letting us know it still exists.
 
2014-03-19 06:44:15 PM

Ambitwistor: timujin: Just curious, but wouldn't taking CO2 levels from the top of an active volcano be skewed by the volcano itself?

No.  The volcano doesn't emit a lot of CO2, and IIRC they scrub data that's downwind or looks like a pulse of gas.


Cool, thanks
 
2014-03-19 06:46:45 PM

ReverendJynxed: Well what more can it tell us Subby? We know it's high. Now what? Put that money to use fixing the problem instead of letting us know it still exists.


um... unless they continue measuring it, how would you know that the fixes you've tried are having any effect?
 
2014-03-19 06:47:42 PM
Same thing being done with civic education. National exam tells people how embarrassingly uninformed and uneducated students and citizens in general are about how our government works. Solution? Stop giving the test!
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/01/08/national-civi cs -history-tests-disappear
 
2014-03-19 06:50:20 PM
They could probably scrimp up a million by cancelling their spelling bee.
 
2014-03-19 06:56:36 PM

iheartscotch: Because, silly, the senator who sponsored the grant had a nephew who needed a 6 figure job; without any of the requisite qualifications.


Which grant? Which decade?
 
2014-03-19 07:00:24 PM

GoldSpider: cirby: Why does it cost a million dollars a year to monitor CO2 levels?

[lh3.ggpht.com image 301x380]


You should both call him. His number is on his blog page.

Because I KNOW both of you really care about getting the facts...
 
2014-03-19 07:02:45 PM
mediablitz:
You should both call him. His number is on his blog page.

Because I KNOW both of you really care about getting the facts...


So... what did he say when you called him?
 
2014-03-19 07:04:48 PM

timujin: ReverendJynxed: Well what more can it tell us Subby? We know it's high. Now what? Put that money to use fixing the problem instead of letting us know it still exists.

um... unless they continue measuring it, how would you know that the fixes you've tried are having any effect?


It gets colder?
 
2014-03-19 07:05:38 PM

Clemkadidlefark: I want Biden, Obama, Pelosi and Reid to shut up. That .. accounts for at least 2/3


And the other 1/3 is caused soley by Rush Limbaugh's burrito farts.
 
2014-03-19 07:08:10 PM
Monitoring CO2 levels is vitally important.
 
2014-03-19 07:10:52 PM
Wow this study has been going on for a really long time according to the article.

From the article:

"Keeling says that within the next two to three years, the measurement will stay above 400 ppm permanently. "It's just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever," he said. Consistent levels above 400 ppm haven't been seen in human history and perhaps as long as millions of years. "

Damn that's a big jump even in one sentence.

/must keep the thousands of years, perhaps millions of years worth of data going
 
2014-03-19 07:12:44 PM
I've tried that with my electric bill and it didn't work. Damn deniers.
 
2014-03-19 07:16:21 PM

Savage Belief: Clemkadidlefark: I want Biden, Obama, Pelosi and Reid to shut up. That .. accounts for at least 2/3

And the other 1/3 is caused soley by Rush Limbaugh's burrito farts.


Proving once again that having clemkadidlefark ignored as "blah, blah, blah" is still the right call.

/he's like the derpiest of the derp
//the tardiest of the retarded
///and has yet to this day to ever once type anything of value to the world at large
 
2014-03-19 07:16:22 PM

timujin: Just curious, but wouldn't taking CO2 levels from the top of an active volcano be skewed by the volcano itself?


Just curious, but don't you think the scientists who put it there already thought of that?
 
2014-03-19 07:20:28 PM

Ruiizu: Wow this study has been going on for a really long time according to the article.

From the article:

"Keeling says that within the next two to three years, the measurement will stay above 400 ppm permanently. "It's just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever," he said. Consistent levels above 400 ppm haven't been seen in human history and perhaps as long as millions of years. "

Damn that's a big jump even in one sentence.

/must keep the thousands of years, perhaps millions of years worth of data going


You realize that we can get a good idea of the atmospheric CO2 of previous eras WITHOUT having actually lived in those eras, right?
 
2014-03-19 07:22:13 PM

ReverendJynxed: timujin: ReverendJynxed: Well what more can it tell us Subby? We know it's high. Now what? Put that money to use fixing the problem instead of letting us know it still exists.

um... unless they continue measuring it, how would you know that the fixes you've tried are having any effect?

It gets colder?


Since CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, not really.
 
2014-03-19 07:23:26 PM

LordJiro: Ruiizu: Wow this study has been going on for a really long time according to the article.

From the article:

"Keeling says that within the next two to three years, the measurement will stay above 400 ppm permanently. "It's just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever," he said. Consistent levels above 400 ppm haven't been seen in human history and perhaps as long as millions of years. "

Damn that's a big jump even in one sentence.

/must keep the thousands of years, perhaps millions of years worth of data going

You realize that we can get a good idea of the atmospheric CO2 of previous eras WITHOUT having actually lived in those eras, right?


Farking ice cores, how do they work?
 
2014-03-19 07:26:14 PM

cirby: Why does it cost a million dollars a year to monitor CO2 levels?


Came here for this.  He can get a carbon monoxide detector for under $60 on eBay.  Add a laptop with Internet link and solar power, and I suspect the cost is slightly under a megabuck per year.

Plus, according to Wikipedia, the largest component of greenhouse gases is not CO2 but the evil oxygen hydride, which should be banned.
 
2014-03-19 07:28:00 PM
Two things.

First is that this is more of a general problem with all of science at the moment, where it is more and more difficult to get funding than it was at any point in the last 50+ years.

Second, most of the people in this thread are complete idiots when it comes to how science works.
 
2014-03-19 07:29:23 PM

Zeppelininthesky: ReverendJynxed: timujin: ReverendJynxed: Well what more can it tell us Subby? We know it's high. Now what? Put that money to use fixing the problem instead of letting us know it still exists.

um... unless they continue measuring it, how would you know that the fixes you've tried are having any effect?

It gets colder?

Since CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, not really.


No, as in when the problem is fixed, it gets colder. Study it out.
 
2014-03-19 07:30:55 PM
Even if Scripps gets out of the CO2 monitoring business, NOAA still has their own monitoring going on at Mouna Loa and there are over 100 stations around the world doing the same thing.
 
2014-03-19 07:32:45 PM

satanorsanta: Two things.

First is that this is more of a general problem with all of science at the moment, where it is more and more difficult to get funding than it was at any point in the last 50+ years.

Second, most of the people in this thread are complete idiots when it comes to how science works.


Well the main thing is that you found a way to feel falsely superior to everyone.
 
2014-03-19 07:32:48 PM

Gyrfalcon: timujin: Just curious, but wouldn't taking CO2 levels from the top of an active volcano be skewed by the volcano itself?

Just curious, but don't you think the scientists who put it there already thought of that?


I'm sure they did, I was hoping someone could tell me if it were significant and, if so, what they do about it.  Someone did, but thanks for your complete lack of valuable input.
 
2014-03-19 07:35:16 PM
But now how are the CO2 scientists supposed to pay off their Porsches and mansions, without all that sweet sweet grant money flowing in?


/we all know you're rolling in it, that's why you're conspiring with the UN to send all the first world money to the 3rd world, so that there won't be any funding left for the next generation of climate scientists, and you guys get to go out on top.
//or you'll move to Venezuela and rule the world with an iron fist
///even odds
 
2014-03-19 07:39:13 PM

LordJiro: Ruiizu: Wow this study has been going on for a really long time according to the article.

From the article:

"Keeling says that within the next two to three years, the measurement will stay above 400 ppm permanently. "It's just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever," he said. Consistent levels above 400 ppm haven't been seen in human history and perhaps as long as millions of years. "

Damn that's a big jump even in one sentence.

/must keep the thousands of years, perhaps millions of years worth of data going

You realize that we can get a good idea of the atmospheric CO2 of previous eras WITHOUT having actually lived in those eras, right?


Clearly not because the Earth has only existed for 4,000.

You are just the Debil trying to tempt us and we must stop you. Praise Jebus.

/or he is an idiot, take your pick.
 
2014-03-19 07:41:59 PM

HighZoolander: But now how are the CO2 scientists supposed to pay off their Porsches and mansions, without all that sweet sweet grant money flowing in?


/we all know you're rolling in it, that's why you're conspiring with the UN to send all the first world money to the 3rd worl


That's a fantastic conspiracy theory. I bet you'd get lots of posts in freeperland on that.
 
2014-03-19 07:43:40 PM

rkiller1: cirby: Why does it cost a million dollars a year to monitor CO2 levels?

Came here for this.  He can get a carbon monoxide detector for under $60 on eBay.  Add a laptop with Internet link and solar power, and I suspect the cost is slightly under a megabuck per year.

Plus, according to Wikipedia, the largest component of greenhouse gases is not CO2 but the evil oxygen hydride, which should be banned.

From Wiki:


 Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. The atmospheric concentration of vapor is highly variable and depends largely on temperature, from less than 0.01% in extremely cold regions up to 3% by mass at in saturated air at about 32 °C.
The average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH4 and CO2. Thus, water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that more water vapor will be present per unit volume at elevated temperatures. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor (assuming that the relative humity remains approximately constant; modeling and observational studies find that this is indeed so). Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming. Eventually other earth processes offset these positive feedbacks, stabilizing the global temperature at a new equilibrium and preventing the loss of Earth's water through a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect.
 
2014-03-19 07:45:58 PM

Knight without armor: Same thing being done with civic education. National exam tells people how embarrassingly uninformed and uneducated students and citizens in general are about how our government works. Solution? Stop giving the test!
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/01/08/national-civi cs -history-tests-disappear


Lol heartland.
 
2014-03-19 07:47:07 PM

dywed88: LordJiro: Ruiizu: Wow this study has been going on for a really long time according to the article.

From the article:

"Keeling says that within the next two to three years, the measurement will stay above 400 ppm permanently. "It's just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever," he said. Consistent levels above 400 ppm haven't been seen in human history and perhaps as long as millions of years. "

Damn that's a big jump even in one sentence.

/must keep the thousands of years, perhaps millions of years worth of data going

You realize that we can get a good idea of the atmospheric CO2 of previous eras WITHOUT having actually lived in those eras, right?

Clearly not because the Earth has only existed for 4,000.

You are just the Debil trying to tempt us and we must stop you. Praise Jebus.

/or he is an idiot, take your pick.


That's 6,000, not 4,000.
 
2014-03-19 07:48:37 PM

MarkEC: Even if Scripps gets out of the CO2 monitoring business, NOAA still has their own monitoring going on at Mouna Loa and there are over 100 stations around the world doing the same thing.


Cool. Bobby Jindal needs to know who to sneer at.
 
2014-03-19 07:50:22 PM

mediablitz: iheartscotch: Because, silly, the senator who sponsored the grant had a nephew who needed a 6 figure job; without any of the requisite qualifications.

Which grant? Which decade?


My guess? Probably a senator from Hawaii.

/ or, possibly a former congress critter in Illinois; that was originally from Hawaii.....
 
Displayed 50 of 84 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report