New York State suffers 6 feet and counting of global warming
Discussion
Mr Gearchange said:
You want to look at your maths again Professor?
You seem to say that 3% of CO2 is man made.
Then you say that 0.0012% of CO2 is man made.
You seem to be mixing up man made Co2 as a percentage of all Co2 with man made Co2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere.
Forgivable though - because you probably just read that somewhere then just relayed the same duff information without thinking to check either it's accuracy or veracity.
...
His maths is correct, he just so happened to (i presume accidentally) say 0.0012% of CO2 was man-made rather than 0.0012% of the atmosphere.You seem to say that 3% of CO2 is man made.
Then you say that 0.0012% of CO2 is man made.
You seem to be mixing up man made Co2 as a percentage of all Co2 with man made Co2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere.
Forgivable though - because you probably just read that somewhere then just relayed the same duff information without thinking to check either it's accuracy or veracity.
...
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the %'s, but the maths, none-the-less is correct. If CO2 makes up 4% of the atmosphere and 3% of this is man-made then man-made CO2 makes up 0.0012% of the atmosphere. Or to put it another way 99.9988% of the atmosphere is not man-made CO2.
Mr Gearchange said:
You want to look at your maths again Professor?
You seem to say that 3% of CO2 is man made.
Then you say that 0.0012% of CO2 is man made.
You seem to be mixing up man made Co2 as a percentage of all Co2 with man made Co2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere.
Forgivable though - because you probably just read that somewhere then just relayed the same duff information without thinking to check either it's accuracy or veracity.
That's why peer reviewed scientific research is important - and there a lots of it around on man made climate change.
I'd love to not believe it - and I was hugely sceptical for a long time - but the sheer weight of scientific evidence points towards a problem.
I thought it was perfectly clear, if you pardon the pun. 3% or so of the atmospheric CO2 content can be attributed to man. CO2 as a proportion of atmosphere, as you know, is around 400ppm, or 0.04%.You seem to say that 3% of CO2 is man made.
Then you say that 0.0012% of CO2 is man made.
You seem to be mixing up man made Co2 as a percentage of all Co2 with man made Co2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere.
Forgivable though - because you probably just read that somewhere then just relayed the same duff information without thinking to check either it's accuracy or veracity.
That's why peer reviewed scientific research is important - and there a lots of it around on man made climate change.
I'd love to not believe it - and I was hugely sceptical for a long time - but the sheer weight of scientific evidence points towards a problem.
Edited by Mr Gearchange on Friday 21st November 11:32
So that's 3% of 0.04%, ie the square root of f
k all. Indistinguishable from nowt.Thanks to Diderot for the graph which paints a thousand words.
"ARMISTICE DAY STORM"
November 11-12, 1940
Mild weather ahead of an intense low pressure system tracking from Kansas to western Wisconsin, was quickly followed by a raging blizzard. Many people were caught off-guard by the severity of the storm and particularly the plunging temperatures. Sixty degree temperatures during the morning of the 11th was followed by single digit readings by the morning of the 12th. These very cold temperatures and snow amounts were very unusual for this early in the season. Up to 26 inches of snow fell in Minnesota, while winds of 50 to 80 mph and heavy snows were common over parts of the states of Wisconsin, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa and Michigan. These winds were responsible for whipping up 20 foot drifts. A total of 144 deaths were blamed on the storm (13 in Wisconsin), most of which were duck hunters along the Mississippi River. Milwaukee received only a trace of snow, but 80 mph gradient winds downed hundreds of trees.
Global Warming in 1940! and we all thought it was a modern day thing. God forbid looking at the 1800's it was around then as well but called unusually bad weather rather than global warming!
November 11-12, 1940
Mild weather ahead of an intense low pressure system tracking from Kansas to western Wisconsin, was quickly followed by a raging blizzard. Many people were caught off-guard by the severity of the storm and particularly the plunging temperatures. Sixty degree temperatures during the morning of the 11th was followed by single digit readings by the morning of the 12th. These very cold temperatures and snow amounts were very unusual for this early in the season. Up to 26 inches of snow fell in Minnesota, while winds of 50 to 80 mph and heavy snows were common over parts of the states of Wisconsin, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa and Michigan. These winds were responsible for whipping up 20 foot drifts. A total of 144 deaths were blamed on the storm (13 in Wisconsin), most of which were duck hunters along the Mississippi River. Milwaukee received only a trace of snow, but 80 mph gradient winds downed hundreds of trees.
Global Warming in 1940! and we all thought it was a modern day thing. God forbid looking at the 1800's it was around then as well but called unusually bad weather rather than global warming!
Breadvan72 said:
What I love most about the debate is the idea that we are being saved from Government lies and thousands of evil scientists who care only for research grants by a plucky, ragtag band of ... enormous oil companies and their hired PR guys.
My favourite part of the debate is the scientists, campaigners and politicians flying around the world in private jets to various meetings telling us to reduce our carbon dioxide production in order to save the planet 
V88Dicky said:
Mr Gearchange said:
You want to look at your maths again Professor?
You seem to say that 3% of CO2 is man made.
Then you say that 0.0012% of CO2 is man made.
You seem to be mixing up man made Co2 as a percentage of all Co2 with man made Co2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere.
Forgivable though - because you probably just read that somewhere then just relayed the same duff information without thinking to check either it's accuracy or veracity.
That's why peer reviewed scientific research is important - and there a lots of it around on man made climate change.
I'd love to not believe it - and I was hugely sceptical for a long time - but the sheer weight of scientific evidence points towards a problem.
I thought it was perfectly clear, if you pardon the pun. 3% or so of the atmospheric CO2 content can be attributed to man. CO2 as a proportion of atmosphere, as you know, is around 400ppm, or 0.04%.You seem to say that 3% of CO2 is man made.
Then you say that 0.0012% of CO2 is man made.
You seem to be mixing up man made Co2 as a percentage of all Co2 with man made Co2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere.
Forgivable though - because you probably just read that somewhere then just relayed the same duff information without thinking to check either it's accuracy or veracity.
That's why peer reviewed scientific research is important - and there a lots of it around on man made climate change.
I'd love to not believe it - and I was hugely sceptical for a long time - but the sheer weight of scientific evidence points towards a problem.
Edited by Mr Gearchange on Friday 21st November 11:32
So that's 3% of 0.04%, ie the square root of f
k all. Indistinguishable from nowt.Thanks to Diderot for the graph which paints a thousand words.
I doubt those in Buffalo are all that concerned whether it's global warming or not all they know is that any outward opening doors don't open
Main problem is "how much is on the roof" hopefully the wind will take care of that.
Second problem is, where do you put it. Even 18" of snow creates 5ft piles when ploughed in the street and 10ft piles in carparks.
I've only experienced 3ft, my snowblower worked it's xxxxx off for two days.
The dogs had to have walkways carved into the back yard so they could take a crap, although one of them realised if he could get up on the surface and gain initial momentum he could run on top of the snow.
Of course when he stopped he sank....(legs not 3ft) temporary panic followed by a massive cloud of snow as he extradited himself to begin another run round the garden.
Basically 6ft of snow is a lot of snowballs.
Main problem is "how much is on the roof" hopefully the wind will take care of that.
Second problem is, where do you put it. Even 18" of snow creates 5ft piles when ploughed in the street and 10ft piles in carparks.
I've only experienced 3ft, my snowblower worked it's xxxxx off for two days.
The dogs had to have walkways carved into the back yard so they could take a crap, although one of them realised if he could get up on the surface and gain initial momentum he could run on top of the snow.
Of course when he stopped he sank....(legs not 3ft) temporary panic followed by a massive cloud of snow as he extradited himself to begin another run round the garden.
Basically 6ft of snow is a lot of snowballs.
plunker said:
280ppm (pre-industrial) to 400ppm (current) = 43% increase, or a third of the current levels.
Yep, that's right.From 0.028% to 0.04% of atmosphere.
Don't forget, it's been much higher in the past, greater than 4000ppm in the Ordovician- Silurian period and 2000ppm in the Jurassic-Cretaceous period, yet there was no 'runaway warming' then.
jeff m2 said:
I doubt those in Buffalo are all that concerned whether it's global warming or not all they know is that any outward opening doors don't open
Main problem is "how much is on the roof" hopefully the wind will take care of that.
Second problem is, where do you put it. Even 18" of snow creates 5ft piles when ploughed in the street and 10ft piles in carparks.
I've only experienced 3ft, my snowblower worked it's xxxxx off for two days.
The dogs had to have walkways carved into the back yard so they could take a crap, although one of them realised if he could get up on the surface and gain initial momentum he could run on top of the snow.
Of course when he stopped he sank....(legs not 3ft) temporary panic followed by a massive cloud of snow as he extradited himself to begin another run round the garden.
Basically 6ft of snow is a lot of snowballs.
This post requires a youtube video. Main problem is "how much is on the roof" hopefully the wind will take care of that.
Second problem is, where do you put it. Even 18" of snow creates 5ft piles when ploughed in the street and 10ft piles in carparks.
I've only experienced 3ft, my snowblower worked it's xxxxx off for two days.
The dogs had to have walkways carved into the back yard so they could take a crap, although one of them realised if he could get up on the surface and gain initial momentum he could run on top of the snow.
Of course when he stopped he sank....(legs not 3ft) temporary panic followed by a massive cloud of snow as he extradited himself to begin another run round the garden.
Basically 6ft of snow is a lot of snowballs.
gavsdavs said:
dickymint said:
Try this then...............
I'll leave you to do the math - Clue....it's very very small
Go buy some pistons that are 3.4% larger than they should be. See how that works for ya.I'll leave you to do the math - Clue....it's very very small
Saying its small is totally irrelevant if you don't know what tolerances you can work in.
So good old Gaia has a pre-determined sensitivity tolerances to 3.4%. Christ, we really are doomed!
V88Dicky said:
plunker said:
280ppm (pre-industrial) to 400ppm (current) = 43% increase, or a third of the current levels.
Yep, that's right.From 0.028% to 0.04% of atmosphere.
Don't forget, it's been much higher in the past, greater than 4000ppm in the Ordovician- Silurian period and 2000ppm in the Jurassic-Cretaceous period, yet there was no 'runaway warming' then.
BillPeart said:
The very most laughable post on here, not withstanding gear change and his authorative "my understanding is..." offerings.
So good old Gaia has a pre-determined sensitivity tolerances to 3.4%. Christ, we really are doomed!
I think the point was that tiny numbers don't necessarily mean tiny impact, as some are implying. You have to see it in context. So good old Gaia has a pre-determined sensitivity tolerances to 3.4%. Christ, we really are doomed!
As a percentage of my bodyweight, 2mg is a tiny, irrelevant amount... unless it's 2mg of cyanide.
plunker said:
280ppm (pre-industrial) to 400ppm (current) = 43% increase, or a third of the current levels.
How much is from the outgassing of the oceans due to all the natural warming - c'mon plunks aren't you just a little bit concerned that the earth isn't doing anything the CAGW high priests predicted?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff