Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 9:00pm:


The point is that it's x=6 and y= 0.0384 or whatever.

Quote:


If you can't grasp this simple point then there is no point trying to convince you of anything more complex. This argument is not even related to global warming. It's related to the precision of two totally different measurements that are chalk and cheese.

In the first case, the factors that determine the precision are the calbration of the  flow meters, the accuracy of determination of the position of the ship, the extent to which the dynamics of oceanic flow change over the measurement period and so on... In short, it's a difficult measurement.

In the second case, the factors that determine the accuracy are the  accuracy of the calibration standards, the accuracy of the GC and lack of contamination of the sample and the extent to which it is representative. Carbon dioxide mixing in the atmosphere is relatively fast, and there is very little difference, even in readings between stations situated in different hemispheres. Currently the atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa is 387ppm. Seasonally corrected, it's 388ppm. The Global Mean is also 388ppm. At the South Pole, it's 388ppm, at Christmas Island, it's just over 387ppm, at Baring Head NZ, it's also 387ppm. These are independent measurements and they are relatively easy to conduct.  I have not used a Gas Chromatograph for at least 15 years, but I am quite confident that I could take a representative air sample, go to our lab and test a sample using a GC, and get a result to within 1% at least.

The two measurements are like chalk and cheese. If you make a statement on the precision and accuracy of one method, it has absolutely no bearing on the other. It astounds me that you think differently.

The comparative example of rat rectal temperature determination and IQ determination are also chalk and cheese. The first one is easy. The second one depends on the degree to which his self styled Lordship has self medicated using single malt.

You simply cannot deduce something about accuracy and precision of one method from an entirely unrelated one.

OK. You have embarrassed yourself enough. Please know where to quit.

Soren wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 9:52am:



I wasn't even talking about the 'effects' of something changing, I was talking about difficulty in measurement of the change in a certain flow rate.

Besides that, your argument still doesn't make sense.  The effects of some things are more difficult to determine than others, and the accuracy of such predictions depend entirely on the unique set of factors that underlie each issue. 

A slowing of the Gulf stream will almost certainly result in a reduction of heat transfer, resulting in more severe winters in North West Europe, Iceland etc. To link the current extreme weather in Europe to that factor alone is quite a tenuous link, especially since there is one other explanation coming to the fore, connected with the West Greenland flow.

It's difficult enough to determine that there has been a 6 percent reduction, let alone the effects of such a reduction.

On the other hand, the effects of a doubling of Greenhouse Gases is probably one of the most studied aspect ever, in recent years.

Soren wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 11:49am:


The 6% is a change in ocean flow. I don't know where you plucked  0.0384% from, but it's certainly not a percentage change in anything that I know of. The percentage change in atmospheric CO2 in the last 100 years has been more like 30%.   

Are you comparing percentage change in ocean flow with absolute concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere expressed as a percentage?

Now that's just plain weird.  You should be careful where you get your 'facts' from.

Would you like a shovel, or have you dug yourself into a big enough hole already?

by doubling it you add 100% of the total. The Gulf stream flow was reported to have changed by 30%, then 6%.

Your argument is fallacious.

Soren wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 8:21pm:


You must be either totally confused or very 'drunk' (I'll be charitable here) if you think I'm saying that. What are you saying here? That I think 6% is the same as 30% is the same as 100% ?

- and why do your figures keep changing anyway?

You are the one that has been trying to compare apples with pears.

I advised you to quit while you were ahead. Now you're wondering why I persist in saying things that I never even said in the first place.

Well your arguments impressed Marvel, Soren, that speaks volumes in itself, lmao.

Maybe you could form a "society"?

lol, happy australia day marlboro stuyvesant viscount.

Soren wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 8:21pm:


In that example, you're comparing money to money. It's clear cut.

When you start comparing ocean flow rate to atmospheric CO2 concentration, that's where you become Viscount of Cloud Cuckoo land.

The two parameters are entirely unrelated.