LithiaWx
-
Posts
9,945 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by LithiaWx
-
wtf? btw still a tiny increase
-
The percentage increase is tiny.
-
Since you guys are doing the retro thing here is one of me circa 1997ish. Taken in Panama City Beach,FL I was either a Sophomore or Junior in HS at the time.
-
Thanks, it's March 3rd. Approaching very fast now lol
-
Here is a recent pic from my Engagement photo session.
-
The Huffington Post? really? The place that thinks anything and everything Kim Kardashian is newsworthy? LOL
-
The entire scale from one side to to other represents about a 5% increase. Even though the colors look bad the total increase in the arctic is around 2% (give or take a bit) or so over of the course of that video. That's not alarming or even much of a concern for me, but to each their own.
-
These ideas are insane. We don't know the ramifications of doing either of these things. Big, big mistake.
-
This entire thread has no business being on a scientific forum. The subject I have no problem with but some of the posts in this thread are a joke.
-
Fair enough, I missed that tbh, it only stays on the screen for a few moments. That said I still can't get over the characterization of methane as farts right after he was talking about stations getting a whiff of methane a few days ago.
-
Honestly, when you have Friv and Skier saying that some posters in this thread are being alarmists, some of you should take a step back and consider if they are talking about you.
-
The video is worthless, there is no scale to tell what the colors represent concentration wise for methane. Also I love your scientific use of the word farts, very professional.
-
TerryM for moderator!
-
^ This times a billion.
-
This is cute, I'll give you that.
-
Updated..
-
real men wear pink.
-
Look at the date on the bottom of the graph and the dates from the bottom of the ones I'm posting. It's old information that is not showing up on the newer graphs.
-
Vergent we agree to disagree on this subject, anymore arguing by either of us is futile. Do you agree?
-
Wow, where to start? Why do you continue to use Barrow's false readings as an argument? The wind trajectories you posted don't even have the air moving over the arctic at all. California's rise in methane if accurate is no where near the extreme levels I objected to wrt Barrow's readings. I said show me another station with methane levels rising as sharply as Barrow's. The California one you posted is not even close and Barrows have not spiked at all recently. I think I'm done arguing with you. If you want to keep posting an erroneous graph from Barrow to prove your point, go ahead. Everyone who has read the thread knows they are inaccurate, all it does is cause you to lose credibility every time you post garbage. Methane levels are rising worldwide, to see a slightly higher than normal reading from a few months ago is not strange. The trend is up and we have set new methane records over and over again this is not a new development. If methane were to spike as high as the Barrow one did before the correction then I would agree we have a serious issue. Right now we have a group of scientists with some data that has not even been written into a paper or peer reviewed yet. You are jumping the gun.
-
Why do you continue to use the older Barrow data when it has been proven wrong? The data is not accurate, you know it but yet you still use it. The graph you posted was from the 12th, the more recent graph from the 28th shows the reading was obviously not correct which I said over and over again before it was proven. The other stations are not much to note either, they are consistent with a slow global rise in Methane levels worldwide. Why are you continuing to propagate the lie that Barrow saw a rise/spike in methane of nearly 20% when it was obviously an error?
-
All the images I posted were using surface flasks. This does not make any sense unless the reading was an error. One chart is newer than the other, perhaps the readings were bad and the reason it is variable depending on the start date is that one image is newer than the other. All the images showing no spike are newer than the one that showed the spike. I think the spike was an error, this post is basically proof.
-
Well interesting. I was able to recreate it and found some issues... Depending on your start date it changes the readings around quite a bit, some of them don't even show a spike the second half of this year. Go to time span and and select a time range. I'm even more skeptical now, the data does not even match once you change the starting date everything else being equal. http://www.esrl.noaa...am=ccgg&type=ts http://www.esrl.noaa...am=ccgg&type=ts http://www.esrl.noaa...am=ccgg&type=ts
-
answers in red
-
I got the image from a post Vergent made. I tried to recreate the image off the site you linked and was unable to.
