Remember me
▼ Content

Percentages



Page 2 of 4<1234>
29-04-2020 16:36
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
keepit wrote:
ibd, itn, gfm,
You guys put on this constant stream of disinformation

You seem confused. I think the names you were looking for were keepit, tmiddles, and spot.

keepit wrote:
but there are so few people on this website listening

If so, then why do YOU keep posting on this website?

keepit wrote:
and even fewer believing you.

You have no idea how many people believe or don't believe us.

keepit wrote:
What is your purpose?

What is YOUR purpose?

keepit wrote:
It seems futile to me.

Yet YOU are still here...

keepit wrote:
I know my reason for staying here - i learn from the exchanges/arguments because i look up references (mostly wiki) to understand the issue.

You aren't learning anything from the exchanges/arguments made on here. You are, rather, blindly appealing to Wikipedia as a "holy source". This is why you have a 0.000 batting average.

keepit wrote:
Why all the effort when almost noone is listening?

Yet YOU keep posting on here. Why do you do so, if "almost noone is listening"?

It's funny that you don't even realize that you are attacking YOURSELF when you say stuff like that.
30-04-2020 00:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
gfm7175 wrote:
keepit wrote:
ibd, itn, gfm,
You guys put on this constant stream of disinformation

You seem confused. I think the names you were looking for were keepit, tmiddles, and spot.


Here's how it goes:
Joe Conspiracus makes a absurd claim OOYA
Debater points out that available data contradicts said claim
Joe Conspiracus says the data is not valid, was doctored, forged as part of a conspiracy, or so inaccurate it's not usable.
But Joe Conspiracus has nothing to offer in support of the OOYA claim.

This formula is INVINCIBLE for Joe, because it's bat sh#t crazy

To those soft in the head enough to run with this ball you can have ANYTHING you want:
Flat Earth
Reality doesn't exist
Major League Baseball is in control all of our minds
and every INFOWARS story you take a fancy to

ANYTHING! will fit that recipe.
Edited on 30-04-2020 00:33
30-04-2020 03:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
keepit wrote:
ibd, itn, gfm,
You guys put on this constant stream of disinformation

You seem confused. I think the names you were looking for were keepit, tmiddles, and spot.


Here's how it goes:
Joe Conspiracus makes a absurd claim OOYA
Debater points out that available data contradicts said claim
Joe Conspiracus says the data is not valid, was doctored, forged as part of a conspiracy, or so inaccurate it's not usable.
But Joe Conspiracus has nothing to offer in support of the OOYA claim.

This formula is INVINCIBLE for Joe, because it's bat sh#t crazy

To those soft in the head enough to run with this ball you can have ANYTHING you want:
Flat Earth
Reality doesn't exist
Major League Baseball is in control all of our minds
and every INFOWARS story you take a fancy to

ANYTHING! will fit that recipe.

You toss quite a word salad there, tmiddles.


The Parrot Killer
14-05-2020 17:25
Nobi
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
can someone explain how the Coronavirus can be transmitted by air (airborne), if at all? The information on WHO's Website tend to be very vague.

From WHO:

There are reports from settings where symptomatic COVID-19 patients have been admitted and in which no COVID-19 RNA was detected in air samples.11-12 WHO is aware of other studies which have evaluated the presence of COVID-19 RNA in air samples, but which are not yet published in peer-reviewed journals. It is important to note that the detection of RNA in environmental samples based on PCR-based assays is not indicative of viable virus that could be transmissible. Further studies are needed to determine whether it is possible to detect COVID-19 virus in air samples from patient rooms where no procedures or support treatments that generate aerosols are ongoing. As evidence emerges, it is important to know whether viable virus is found and what role it may play in transmission


As i understood it correctly, even if the RNA is present in the air, there is no connection can be made that it is transmissible by air.
14-05-2020 19:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
Nobi wrote:
can someone explain how the Coronavirus can be transmitted by air (airborne), if at all? The information on WHO's Website tend to be very vague.

From WHO:

There are reports from settings where symptomatic COVID-19 patients have been admitted and in which no COVID-19 RNA was detected in air samples.11-12 WHO is aware of other studies which have evaluated the presence of COVID-19 RNA in air samples, but which are not yet published in peer-reviewed journals. It is important to note that the detection of RNA in environmental samples based on PCR-based assays is not indicative of viable virus that could be transmissible. Further studies are needed to determine whether it is possible to detect COVID-19 virus in air samples from patient rooms where no procedures or support treatments that generate aerosols are ongoing. As evidence emerges, it is important to know whether viable virus is found and what role it may play in transmission


As i understood it correctly, even if the RNA is present in the air, there is no connection can be made that it is transmissible by air.


Viruses transmitted by air invade the body through the mucus membranes or by contact with moist tissues in the respiratory tract.

A virus is more than just RNA. It is a hardy little package that goes with it. The viral structure can exist for hours in the open air...days for some of them.

Viruses can also be transmitted by contact with a contaminated surface. Touching that surface, then using that hand to touch your face, deposits said virus on the skin, right near an entrance path to a way into your body. These vectors are well documented with a variety of airborne viruses.

It really depends on the particular virus. Covid-19 can survive for a few hours in open air intact.

Basic sanitation practices can eliminate or severely limit your exposure to harmful viruses. Wash your hands, and stay away from people who are sick. If they are showing symptoms, they are infectious for viruses transmitted by air. Don't panic. The body is actually pretty damn good at destroying viruses before they gain a foothold. Mucus, saliva, earwax, etc. all form lethal barriers to viruses arriving by air.

Science does not use consensus. Peer review is just a form of consensus. There is no 'elite' voting bloc in science.


The Parrot Killer
15-05-2020 07:52
Nobi
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
thank you ITN.

in the other threads, you have also mentioned that wearing the mask will not prevent the virus since the masks (according to their specifications) only block certain particles which are much bigger than the virus.

Let's say someone sneezed or coughed on you (or droplets in the air) which are contiminated with the virus, land on the mask. The droplets can't seep through, but the virus do. You'll get infected by contact with the virus since the mask is contaminated, correct? Or can the virus escape the droplet on the mask and "fly" freely in the gap between the face and the mask?
15-05-2020 08:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
Nobi wrote:Or can the virus escape the droplet on the mask and "fly" freely in the gap between the face and the mask?

Nobi, what about the other part of the question?

What would be the big deal if you were to get the coronaflu? Let's strip away the media hype. What would be the result?

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-05-2020 10:08
Nobi
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobi wrote:Or can the virus escape the droplet on the mask and "fly" freely in the gap between the face and the mask?

Nobi, what about the other part of the question?

What would be the big deal if you were to get the coronaflu? Let's strip away the media hype. What would be the result?

.


Hi IBDmann, good thing that you asked. personally, i don't believe in the hype and i'm not afraid of getting the flu at all. I might've contracted the virus a few weeks ago since i've had all the symptoms, including difficulty of breathing(which i had never experienced before). It was just a few minutes, 3-4 times in the course of 2-3 days. And it went away right after that. And im fit as a fiddle ever since. I didnt even bothered to get checked though.

But, my question actually stems from a discussion with a friend. He believes that a mask is sufficient to stop the virus. He believes that the coronaflu is only transmissible by droplets, and not by air (quoting WHO's Statement as above). So my question is directed more towards the functionality/efficiency of a mask, not if the virus is deadly or not.

Sorry if it's confusing, English isn't my first language.
Edited on 15-05-2020 10:14
15-05-2020 18:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
Nobi wrote: Sorry if it's confusing, English isn't my first language.

What is your first language?
15-05-2020 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
Nobi wrote:
thank you ITN.

in the other threads, you have also mentioned that wearing the mask will not prevent the virus since the masks (according to their specifications) only block certain particles which are much bigger than the virus.

Let's say someone sneezed or coughed on you (or droplets in the air) which are contiminated with the virus, land on the mask. The droplets can't seep through, but the virus do. You'll get infected by contact with the virus since the mask is contaminated, correct? Or can the virus escape the droplet on the mask and "fly" freely in the gap between the face and the mask?


The droplets won't make it through (mostly), but the virus will. The virus can be transmitted through dry air. It will survive intact for up to three hours in dry air.

Wearing a mask by a healthy person is particularly stupid. It doesn't stop anything like a virus in the air from infecting you.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-05-2020 21:03
15-05-2020 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
Nobi wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobi wrote:Or can the virus escape the droplet on the mask and "fly" freely in the gap between the face and the mask?

Nobi, what about the other part of the question?

What would be the big deal if you were to get the coronaflu? Let's strip away the media hype. What would be the result?

.


Hi IBDmann, good thing that you asked. personally, i don't believe in the hype and i'm not afraid of getting the flu at all. I might've contracted the virus a few weeks ago since i've had all the symptoms, including difficulty of breathing(which i had never experienced before). It was just a few minutes, 3-4 times in the course of 2-3 days. And it went away right after that. And im fit as a fiddle ever since. I didnt even bothered to get checked though.

But, my question actually stems from a discussion with a friend. He believes that a mask is sufficient to stop the virus. He believes that the coronaflu is only transmissible by droplets, and not by air (quoting WHO's Statement as above). So my question is directed more towards the functionality/efficiency of a mask, not if the virus is deadly or not.

Sorry if it's confusing, English isn't my first language.


This virus can be deadly, but only if your respiratory system is already compromised. If one smokes, or is suffering from cancer of the lungs, etc, the virus can do them in. Most of the deaths in Washington are in retirement homes where people are living in close quarters, trapped with each other (they can't go out and no one can come in except staff), and many are just a few inches from death anyway.

You have to question the death numbers anyway, since county coroners have been requiring doctors to list the cause of death as Covid-19 when the virus wasn't even involved. They do this to justify scamming money from the federal government. There is a lot of fraud going on.

Our own governor, Inslee, is already under four lawsuits, filed by business owners, legislature members, sheriffs, and even our school system. Some county coroners are also facing lawsuits by those who had someone pass away due to throat cancer, for example, and have it listed as Covid-19. Some doctors have also filed suit against these coroners.

Lawsuits are also being filed against many retirement homes, for doing nothing about the deplorable conditions that allowed this virus to spread so readily among their tenants and doing nothing to treat them. Other retirement homes had no special problem with it. They are better run. Indeed, the infection rate and death rate in The Villages in Florida are lower than the surrounding areas of Florida. This is a retirement community that spreads over three counties. Most of it is in Sumter county.

Yes, the virus is real. It can kill (pretty much like any bad flu virus), but the numbers are just not high enough to warrant the mass panic and hypochondria that has gripped the nation.

It's not even enough to call it an epidemic, pandemic, or even a situation. That's the fake news doing that. That's the hoax that Trump is talking about. It's obviously politically motivated too. Look at how gleefully the papers and the Democrats point out the deaths caused by this virus and how gleefully they point out how the economy is collapsing.

This is what the Democrats want. They do not care about the sick. They do not care about the deaths. They do not care about the economy getting shut down. This is what they want. This is what they doing to try to build a case against Trump, since their Russia probe that went three years and produced nothing failed on them.

The virus, the people, and even the misery suffered by the sick and those around the deaths, are but pawns to the Democrats. You want to know where the real sickness lies? Look to the left.


The Parrot Killer
15-05-2020 23:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
Into the Night wrote:You want to know where the real sickness lies? Look to the left.

This says it all.
16-05-2020 02:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:You want to know where the real sickness lies? Look to the left.

This says it all.
If only the right had some real political power.

The President, US Senate and 30 governors is a good start for the Republicans but apparently that isn't enough.

You see Pelosi has magic!



The art of the deal is helpless in the face of this power.
18-05-2020 13:13
Nobi
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobi wrote: Sorry if it's confusing, English isn't my first language.

What is your first language?


my first language is thai.

@ITN: as always, thank you for your extensive explanation and for your input!
18-05-2020 13:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
Nobi wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobi wrote: Sorry if it's confusing, English isn't my first language.

What is your first language?


my first language is thai.

@ITN: as always, thank you for your extensive explanation and for your input!


*humble bow*

Your command of English seems quite good. That's not easy coming from an Asiatic language. My compliments!


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2020 16:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
Nobi wrote:my first language is thai.

How is Thailand handling the ... corona-hype and all?



[irrelevant side question: what is the best thing to put into peanut sauce to make it awsome?]


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-05-2020 17:13
Nobi
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
Into the Night wrote:
Nobi wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobi wrote: Sorry if it's confusing, English isn't my first language.

What is your first language?


my first language is thai.

@ITN: as always, thank you for your extensive explanation and for your input!


*humble bow*

Your command of English seems quite good. That's not easy coming from an Asiatic language. My compliments!


Thank you



IBdaMann wrote:
Nobi wrote:my first language is thai.

How is Thailand handling the ... corona-hype and all?





We had lockdown only until recently, as the country eased the lockdown (apparently the numbers of infected people are decreasing). Businesses are allowed to reopen again as long as they follow strict social distancing measures.

IBdaMann wrote:



irrelevant side question: what is the best thing to put into peanut sauce to make it awsome?]


Chilli paste, i guess?
19-05-2020 03:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
Into the Night wrote:
Yes, the virus is real. It can kill (pretty much like any bad flu virus), but the numbers are just not high enough to warrant the mass panic and hypochondria that has gripped the nation.


This assumes that the counter measures are entirely ineffective.

You have two possibilities:
#1
The shutdown/lockdown/freakout is having a real impact and keeping the numbers down.
You see low numbers
The policy is good.

#2
The shutdown/lockdown/freakout is having little to no impact.
We see low numbers due to nature taking it's uninterrupted course.
In which case we should do nothing. Not because the numbers are low, but because it doesn't matter so why not live normally.

You have presented a third absurd scenarion ITN:
#3
You see low numbers
Therefore the shutdown/lockdown/freakout is not needed.
What?!?
19-05-2020 05:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Yes, the virus is real. It can kill (pretty much like any bad flu virus), but the numbers are just not high enough to warrant the mass panic and hypochondria that has gripped the nation.


This assumes that the counter measures are entirely ineffective.

You have two possibilities:
#1
The shutdown/lockdown/freakout is having a real impact and keeping the numbers down.
You see low numbers
The policy is good.

#2
The shutdown/lockdown/freakout is having little to no impact.
We see low numbers due to nature taking it's uninterrupted course.
In which case we should do nothing. Not because the numbers are low, but because it doesn't matter so why not live normally.

You have presented a third absurd scenarion ITN:
#3
You see low numbers
Therefore the shutdown/lockdown/freakout is not needed.
What?!?


Scenario 3 is not absurd.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2020 05:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
Into the Night wrote:
Scenario 3 is not absurd.
Of course it is you are skipping over if the reaction to the virus has made an impact!

This is how people with severe mental conditions who are taking medication for it decide, because the medication is working, that they don't need it.
Edited on 19-05-2020 06:10
19-05-2020 06:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Scenario 3 is not absurd.
Of course it is you are skipping over if the reaction to the virus has made an impact!

The virus has made no significant impact. The mass hypochondria is the result of fear mongering by you and other Democrats. Mantra 25a...25e...23...24...37d..39p...[/quote]

No argument presented. Fear mongering.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2020 10:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Scenario 3 is not absurd.
Of course it is you are skipping over if the reaction to the virus has made an impact!

The virus has made no significant impact....


Follow along here ITN.

You have earlier said that the reaction to Covid has not helped to slow or stop it. That it is not possible, aside from basic hygiene, to do anything.

You are here saying that the reaction was a mistake because the virus has not had a big impact.

I'm sure you're aware that the same people who are freaking out believe that the reaction to the virus has helped a great deal, so they at least would attribute the lack of a big impact to the reaction.

Your argument is a bit insincere here I would argue. Since you think there is nothing we can do regardless of if the virus is dangerous or not then you should simply say:

This is a mild virus and there is nothing you can do to reduce the damage virus does anyway so the global reaction is a waste.

You don't have two planets to A/B test here. Earth freaked out and took dramatic steps so you'll never know what would have happened if we had not.
19-05-2020 15:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
tmiddles wrote: Follow along here ITN.

Follow along here, riddles ...

You say that the street lights installed by the city had NO effect on the city's elephant infestation. So how do you explain the virtual eradication of the problem? It appears that the threat is a thing of the past. It's a good thing the city responded as it did when it did.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-05-2020 16:49
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(226)
duncan61 wrote:
Can anyone deny this factoid.The CO2 in the atmosphere is .004%


Poor start - its 0.04% not .004%

... nature makes 97%


Worse continuation:

Preindustrial level =270 ppm (had been at that level for at least 100,000 years)
Current level = 416 ppm

Human contribution: (416-270)/270 = 54%

Australia is responsible for 1.3-1.5% of the 3% manmade carbon emmisions.


Australia is ranked 4th in energy usage per capita (i.e., wasteful)

But emission are not the only problem - coal exports are. Australia is one of the world's leading coal exporter so they are just exporting their pollution. So contribute about 16% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Another slight of hand. The 3% is an annual emission - it builds up year by year.
19-05-2020 18:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
DRKTS wrote:Preindustrial level =270 ppm (had been at that level for at least 100,000 years)
Current level = 416 ppm

Hey, Mr. Religious Fanatic, why should any rational person believe the numbers you posted?

Hey, Mr. Preacher-Zombie, why should any rational person believe that the numbers you cited, if true, matter in any way other than plants the world over will be thanking their lucky stars?

DRKTS wrote: Human contribution: (416-270)/270 = 54%

Why should any rational person think that you somehow aren't the most gullible person on the planet?

Is there a reason you can't stick to trivia that is actually true? I assure you there is plenty of it; you can have as much as you want. You really don't need to be using fabricated trivia ... and I don't think it even works well in trying to strike up a conversation. You probably do much better with football stats because they represent events that actually happened and were observed, they can be independently verified and the game isn't played in complete secrecy to meet political agendas.

Besides, think about it, how pathetic is it to be citing fabricated trivia. "Hey, did you know that the combination to the safe that Capt. Kirk opened in S3:E2 was 44L-11R-31L?"

I hope your pick-up lines are better than that.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-05-2020 21:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Scenario 3 is not absurd.
Of course it is you are skipping over if the reaction to the virus has made an impact!

The virus has made no significant impact....


Follow along here ITN.

You have earlier said that the reaction to Covid has not helped to slow or stop it. That it is not possible, aside from basic hygiene, to do anything.

Bingo.
tmiddles wrote:
You are here saying that the reaction was a mistake because the virus has not had a big impact.

Bingo.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm sure you're aware that the same people who are freaking out believe that the reaction to the virus has helped a great deal, so they at least would attribute the lack of a big impact to the reaction.

Too bad. I am not responsible for their hypochondria. Justifying abandoning the Constitution over mass hypochondria won't work.
tmiddles wrote:
Your argument is a bit insincere here I would argue.

Arguments are not sincere or insecure. They simply are. Mantra 16b.
tmiddles wrote:
Since you think there is nothing we can do regardless of if the virus is dangerous or not then you should simply say: ...deleted instruction from the Holy One...

You don't get to put words in people's mouths.
tmiddles wrote:
You don't have two planets to A/B test here.

Where have heard THAT before? Oh, yes. The Church of Global Warming! No, you don't need two planets.
tmiddles wrote:
Earth freaked out and took dramatic steps

Earth is a planet. It cannot freak out or take any steps, dramatic or not.
tmiddles wrote:
so you'll never know what would have happened if we had not.

Sure we do. Not everyone reacted as stupidly as governors in the United States. Some were even stupider, some not so much.

Locking innocent and healthy people in their homes under house arrest is unconstitutional. Even now many of these governors are facing multiple lawsuits. So are several coroners, for faking data.

N95 masks do not stop a virus. Wearing one will not prevent infection.
6 feet does not stop a virus. It can remain intact in dry air for up to three hours.
Arbitrarily deciding which business is 'essential' and allowed to operate is unconstitutional. That is facism.
Arbitrarily deciding which business will manufacture what product and who it will sell to is unconstitutional. That is fascism.

Fascism is unconstitutional. The rebellion is building. Anger is building. People are not going to put up with it. Businesses are opening anyway, despite any governor's orders. Protests are increasing. Lawsuits are being filed. Some violence has already occurred. Soon it will be directed against these governors and any that support them if they don't watch it.

The people will decide. Not some dictator.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2020 21:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Can anyone deny this factoid.The CO2 in the atmosphere is .004%


Poor start - its 0.04% not .004%

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. Mantra 25g...25c... Mauna Loa 'data' is not valid. It's been cooked. It's useless. It's just random numbers.
DRKTS wrote:
... nature makes 97%


Worse continuation:

Preindustrial level =270 ppm (had been at that level for at least 100,000 years)
Current level = 416 ppm

Human contribution: (416-270)/270 = 54%

Australia is responsible for 1.3-1.5% of the 3% manmade carbon emmisions.


Australia is ranked 4th in energy usage per capita (i.e., wasteful)

Argument from randU fallacy. No CO2 molecule comes with a label on where it came from. No one has measured the global atmospheric CO2 content. It is not possible. Measuring atmospheric CO2 didn't start until 1957, well after the industrial revolution. Measuring the entire global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has never occurred. Mantras 25g...25c...21...
DRKTS wrote:
But emission are not the only problem - coal exports are. Australia is one of the world's leading coal exporter so they are just exporting their pollution. So contribute about 16% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Coal is not a problem. It is a cheap and reliable source of energy. Argument from randU fallacy. You do not know how much CO2 is produced by coal.
DRKTS wrote:
Another slight of hand. The 3% is an annual emission - it builds up year by year.

Argument from randU fallacy. Emissions do not accumulate. Base rate fallacy. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e...25a...20a1...20a2...20b...20c...20f...20j...22g...33b...39a...39j..39m...

No argument presented. Attempt to use randU as data. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics.

You are making shit up.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2020 21:58
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Can anyone deny this factoid.The CO2 in the atmosphere is .004%


Poor start - its 0.04% not .004%

Random number. How do you figure 0.04%? Remember, you are speaking of the WHOLE atmosphere.


DRKTS wrote:
Worse continuation:

Preindustrial level =270 ppm

See above. Define "preindustrial". When was that, exactly? Did atmospheric CO2 content remain completely identical during [insert year or period of years here, however you have chosen to define "preindustrial"]? How do you figure 270ppm? Remember, you are speaking of a sizable area, not of a specific spot within the whole atmosphere.

DRKTS wrote:
(had been at that level for at least 100,000 years)

How did people measure atmospheric CO2 levels 100,000 years ago? How do people measure those levels today?

DRKTS wrote:
Current level = 416 ppm

See above.

DRKTS wrote:
Human contribution: (416-270)/270 = 54%

So, any change in atmospheric CO2 levels from 270ppm is definitely completely a result of human activity?

DRKTS wrote:
Australia is ranked 4th in energy usage per capita (i.e., wasteful)

But emission are not the only problem - coal exports are. Australia is one of the world's leading coal exporter so they are just exporting their pollution. So contribute about 16% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Define "pollution". What "pollution" are you speaking of?

DRKTS wrote:
Another slight of hand. The 3% is an annual emission - it builds up year by year.

You're just making up numbers as if they were data. Easily dismissible on sight.
Edited on 19-05-2020 22:07
20-05-2020 02:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
gfm7175 wrote: Random number. How do you figure 0.04%? Remember, you are speaking of the WHOLE atmosphere.

I have to give you credit. You mustered the will to respond to that post. You are a stronger man than I.

gfm7175 wrote:See above. Define "preindustrial".

Obviously he means the late Jurassic. Duh. What else could he mean?

gfm7175 wrote: How do you figure 270ppm? Remember, you are speaking of a sizable area, not of a specific spot within the whole atmosphere.

You picked up on that, good for you. It's like saying that the temperature right now on earth is 22.23 degrees Celsius. Yeah, I guess it is 22.23 degrees somewhere "on earth" You have to feel sorry for anyone so gullible as to actually buy into the entire faulty line of reasoning. It's enough to make you loose faith in humanity. We ... must ... remain ... strong.

gfm7175 wrote: How did people measure atmospheric CO2 levels 100,000 years ago?

This is actually well known. They would run up a hill of standard height, measured to exactly twenty-seven cubits, and they would measure how out of breath they were. To eliminate any error, they would factor in how "in shape" they were at the time, and they would properly weight the results to account for the celestial sign under which the event occurred, lest their results come under scrutiny by future Republicans trying to cling to their guns.

gfm7175 wrote: How do people measure those levels today?

We don't need to. We have all that historic data. See above.

gfm7175 wrote: So, any change in atmospheric CO2 levels from 270ppm is definitely completely a result of human activity?

Duhhh! Try reading up on the science before you ask stupid questions.
Attached image:


Edited on 20-05-2020 02:59
20-05-2020 13:30
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(226)
gfm7175 wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Can anyone deny this factoid.The CO2 in the atmosphere is .004%


Poor start - its 0.04% not .004%

Random number. How do you figure 0.04%? Remember, you are speaking of the WHOLE atmosphere.


416 pmm = 0.04% is the measured concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mona Loa (where the longest continual record is taken), it varies around the globe (+/-10) and with altitude (+/- 5) and time of year (+/- 5).

DRKTS wrote:
Worse continuation:

Preindustrial level =270 ppm

See above. Define "preindustrial". When was that, exactly? Did atmospheric CO2 content remain completely identical during [insert year or period of years here, however you have chosen to define "preindustrial"]? How do you figure 270ppm? Remember, you are speaking of a sizable area, not of a specific spot within the whole atmosphere.


All you have to do is read the papers about this to find the details. "preindustrial" usually means before the beginning of the large scale industrialization in Europe or about 200 years ago.

DRKTS wrote:
(had been at that level for at least 100,000 years)

How did people measure atmospheric CO2 levels 100,000 years ago? How do people measure those levels today?


Again look at the scientific papers on this. Mainly ice cores in this case.

DRKTS wrote:
Current level = 416 ppm

See above.


See above.

DRKTS wrote:
Human contribution: (416-270)/270 = 54%

So, any change in atmospheric CO2 levels from 270ppm is definitely completely a result of human activity?


Yes. If CO2 has remained within very narrow limits for thousands of years and then it suddenly jumps by over 50% just as humans emit more of it then that is a pretty good indication. This is supported by dead reckoning (increase in fossil fuels burned vs increase in CO2), isotope tracing, and loss of atmospheric O2.

DRKTS wrote:
Australia is ranked 4th in energy usage per capita (i.e., wasteful)

But emission are not the only problem - coal exports are. Australia is one of the world's leading coal exporter so they are just exporting their pollution. So contribute about 16% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Define "pollution". What "pollution" are you speaking of?


GHGs and aerosols

DRKTS wrote:
Another slight of hand. The 3% is an annual emission - it builds up year by year.

You're just making up numbers as if they were data. Easily dismissible on sight.


I am using the numbers you quoted. Where do you get the 3% from?
20-05-2020 14:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Can anyone deny this factoid.The CO2 in the atmosphere is .004%


Poor start - its 0.04% not .004%

Random number. How do you figure 0.04%? Remember, you are speaking of the WHOLE atmosphere.


416 pmm = 0.04% is the measured concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mona Loa (where the longest continual record is taken), it varies around the globe (+/-10) and with altitude (+/- 5) and time of year (+/- 5).

Mantra 25g...Mauna Loa station has been cooking their data. It's useless. You are just quoting random numbers for margin of error as well.
DRKTS wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Worse continuation:

Preindustrial level =270 ppm

See above. Define "preindustrial". When was that, exactly? Did atmospheric CO2 content remain completely identical during [insert year or period of years here, however you have chosen to define "preindustrial"]? How do you figure 270ppm? Remember, you are speaking of a sizable area, not of a specific spot within the whole atmosphere.


All you have to do is read the papers about this to find the details. "preindustrial" usually means before the beginning of the large scale industrialization in Europe or about 200 years ago.

No one was measuring global atmospheric CO2 content 200 years ago. It's not possible to measure it today.
DRKTS wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
(had been at that level for at least 100,000 years)

How did people measure atmospheric CO2 levels 100,000 years ago? How do people measure those levels today?


Again look at the scientific papers on this. Mainly ice cores in this case.

Proxy data is not used in science. Mantras 20p...20j...20d... Science is not a paper. Mantra 10.
DRKTS wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Current level = 416 ppm

See above.


See above. See above.

Same Mantras.
DRKTS wrote:
Human contribution: (416-270)/270 = 54%

Yes. If CO2 has remained within very narrow limits for thousands of years and then it suddenly jumps by over 50% just as humans emit more of it then that is a pretty good indication. This is supported by dead reckoning (increase in fossil fuels burned vs increase in CO2), isotope tracing, and loss of atmospheric O2.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. CO2 has no label on where it came from. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of O2 either.
DRKTS wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Australia is ranked 4th in energy usage per capita (i.e., wasteful)

But emission are not the only problem - coal exports are. Australia is one of the world's leading coal exporter so they are just exporting their pollution. So contribute about 16% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Define "pollution". What "pollution" are you speaking of?


GHGs and aerosols

Mantra 22g...22f... No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Mantras 20a1...20a2...
DRKTS wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Another slight of hand. The 3% is an annual emission - it builds up year by year.

You're just making up numbers as if they were data. Easily dismissible on sight.


I am using the numbers you quoted. Where do you get the 3% from?

You are using random numbers. Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e...39j...

No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. Denial of science. Buzzword fallacies. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Define 'pollution'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-05-2020 14:28
20-05-2020 19:18
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Random number. How do you figure 0.04%? Remember, you are speaking of the WHOLE atmosphere.

I have to give you credit. You mustered the will to respond to that post. You are a stronger man than I.

I've found that I have a knack for being able to do that sort of thing. I'm usually a rather patient individual.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:See above. Define "preindustrial".

Obviously he means the late Jurassic. Duh. What else could he mean?

Obviously. Silly me for questioning that...

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: How do you figure 270ppm? Remember, you are speaking of a sizable area, not of a specific spot within the whole atmosphere.

You picked up on that, good for you. It's like saying that the temperature right now on earth is 22.23 degrees Celsius. Yeah, I guess it is 22.23 degrees somewhere "on earth" You have to feel sorry for anyone so gullible as to actually buy into the entire faulty line of reasoning. It's enough to make you loose faith in humanity. We ... must ... remain ... strong.

Yes, I feel sorry for the gullible masses who gobble that shit up.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: How did people measure atmospheric CO2 levels 100,000 years ago?

This is actually well known. They would run up a hill of standard height, measured to exactly twenty-seven cubits, and they would measure how out of breath they were. To eliminate any error, they would factor in how "in shape" they were at the time, and they would properly weight the results to account for the celestial sign under which the event occurred, lest their results come under scrutiny by future Republicans trying to cling to their guns.

Interesting! Now I've learned something new...

But, I'm just curious as to precisely how this thing being called "out of breath" was measured (maybe on a subjective 0-10 scale?), if those measurements were all taken at an identical timing subsequent to the event (ie, always taken at 5 seconds afterwards, instead of some taken at 5 secs afterwards, some at 30 secs after, and etc.) ... I suppose I'm expecting too much there.

I do like how they subsequently made adjustments to The Data to correct it. Obviously, that adheres to Statistical Mathematics and thus makes The Data scientific. I wonder how this thing called "in shape" was measured (maybe on a subjective 0-10 scale as well?) ... I should stop before I get called a Climate Denier...

... too late...

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: How do people measure those levels today?

We don't need to. We have all that historic data. See above.

Obviously. Again, silly me for denying The Data...

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: So, any change in atmospheric CO2 levels from 270ppm is definitely completely a result of human activity?

Duhhh! Try reading up on the science before you ask stupid questions.

Indeed. Silly me for denying The Science...
20-05-2020 19:46
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Can anyone deny this factoid.The CO2 in the atmosphere is .004%


Poor start - its 0.04% not .004%

Random number. How do you figure 0.04%? Remember, you are speaking of the WHOLE atmosphere.


416 pmm = 0.04% is the measured concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mona Loa (where the longest continual record is taken),

Measured at what time, exactly?
Is the Mona Loa station equivalent to Earth's whole atmosphere?

DRKTS wrote:
it varies around the globe (+/-10) and with altitude (+/- 5) and time of year (+/- 5).

10 what? 5 what?

Percent?? Ppm? Koala bears?

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Worse continuation:

Preindustrial level =270 ppm

See above. Define "preindustrial". When was that, exactly? Did atmospheric CO2 content remain completely identical during [insert year or period of years here, however you have chosen to define "preindustrial"]? How do you figure 270ppm? Remember, you are speaking of a sizable area, not of a specific spot within the whole atmosphere.


All you have to do is read the papers about this to find the details. "preindustrial" usually means before the beginning of the large scale industrialization in Europe or about 200 years ago.

Okay, so all of Earth's existence prior to 200 years ago. Got it.

Did CO2 levels remain completely identical during all of those years? ("all of those years" is defined as ~5,800 years, if you believe in a "Bible thumping" 6,000 year old Earth, even though The Bible says no such thing... or means ~4.54 billion years, if you believe in The Scientific Community consensus).

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:
(had been at that level for at least 100,000 years)

How did people measure atmospheric CO2 levels 100,000 years ago? How do people measure those levels today?


Again look at the scientific papers on this. Mainly ice cores in this case.

An ice core at a specific location can provide us with accurate global atmospheric CO2 levels?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!? HOT DIGGITY!!!!!

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:
Current level = 416 ppm

See above.


See above.

See above.

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:
Human contribution: (416-270)/270 = 54%

So, any change in atmospheric CO2 levels from 270ppm is definitely completely a result of human activity?


Yes.

Irrational reasoning, as I will highlight below.

DRKTS wrote:
If CO2 has remained within very narrow limits for thousands of years and then it suddenly jumps by over 50% just as humans emit more of it then that is a pretty good indication.

Paradox.

[1] ANY CHANGE in atmospheric CO2 levels from 270ppm is DEFINITELY COMPLETELY a result of human activity.
[2] Atmospheric CO2 levels CAN CHANGE "within very narrow limits" (from 270ppm) without being a result of human activity.

Which is it?


DRKTS wrote:
This is supported by dead reckoning (increase in fossil fuels burned vs increase in CO2), isotope tracing, and loss of atmospheric O2.

We don't burn fossils for fuel.

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:
Australia is ranked 4th in energy usage per capita (i.e., wasteful)

But emission are not the only problem - coal exports are. Australia is one of the world's leading coal exporter so they are just exporting their pollution. So contribute about 16% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Define "pollution". What "pollution" are you speaking of?


GHGs and aerosols

Define "GHGs". Define "pollution".

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:
Another slight of hand. The 3% is an annual emission - it builds up year by year.

You're just making up numbers as if they were data. Easily dismissible on sight.


I am using the numbers you quoted.

I didn't quote any.

DRKTS wrote:
Where do you get the 3% from?

It's YOUR number, dude.
20-05-2020 20:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
DRKTS wrote: 416 pmm = 0.04% is the measured concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mona Loa

[face palm] Mauna Loa is just one spot on the planet. Just one. It also happens to be right at the base of an active volcano. The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.



Wait a minute! You never knew that, did you? You were never told that Mauna Loa was hijacked to meet a political agenda, one of fear mongering "rising CO2 levels" because it was right next to an active volcano and because they could always fudge the numbers to make it look like the atmosphere is experiencing "unprecedented" increases in CO2 levels.

If Mauna Loa is indicating that CO2 levels are 416 ppm then it is reasonable to assume that the atmospheric average is somewhere below 300 ppm. Mauna Loa numbers are simply much higher than reality.

DRKTS wrote: All you have to do is read the papers about this to find the details. "preindustrial" usually means before the beginning of the large scale industrialization in Europe or about 200 years ago.

Just say it ... "Preindustrialization" means before the advent of this:



DRKTS wrote:
(had been at that level for at least 100,000 years)

How did people measure atmospheric CO2 levels 100,000 years ago? How do people measure those levels today?

Again look at the scientific papers on this. Mainly ice cores in this case. [/quote]
There is no science for this. You are gullible to believe that there is.

DRKTS wrote: If CO2 has remained within very narrow limits for thousands of years and then it suddenly jumps by over 50% just as humans emit more of it then that is a pretty good indication.

Your faith-based speculation is not science, and Mauna Loa data is never a good indication of anything.

Unfortunately, what we have here is a case of you being hornswoggled. Grab yourself a beer and move on.

DRKTS wrote: This is supported by dead reckoning (increase in fossil fuels burned vs increase in CO2), isotope tracing, and loss of atmospheric O2.

I see that you are stuck in the belief that fossils somehow burn. Your religion is WACKY.

[quote]DRKTS wrote: Australia is ranked 4th in energy usage per capita (i.e., wasteful)

... but they plan on trading for a few midfielders and a first round draft pick, and they're pinning high hopes on their new head coach who will be joining them for the training camp in the preseason.

DRKTS wrote: But emission are not the only problem

You haven't even mentioned any problem yet. There cannot be ANOTHER problem if without there being an INITIAL problem.

DRKTS wrote: GHGs and aerosols

GHG's are mythical substances that have the amazing superpower to violate physics. They aren't real.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-05-2020 21:51
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
IBdaMann wrote:
[face palm] Mauna Loa is just one spot on the planet. Just one. It also happens to be right at the base of an active volcano.

This truth always seems to get overlooked. But I'm sure that they "correctly" "adjust their numbers" to address this.

IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: But emission are not the only problem

You haven't even mentioned any problem yet. There cannot be ANOTHER problem if without there being an INITIAL problem.

.

Good catch.
Edited on 20-05-2020 22:02
20-05-2020 21:58
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(226)
gfm7175 wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Can anyone deny this factoid.The CO2 in the atmosphere is .004%


Poor start - its 0.04% not .004%

Random number. How do you figure 0.04%? Remember, you are speaking of the WHOLE atmosphere.


416 pmm = 0.04% is the measured concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mona Loa (where the longest continual record is taken),

Measured at what time, exactly?
Is the Mona Loa station equivalent to Earth's whole atmosphere?

DRKTS wrote:
it varies around the globe (+/-10) and with altitude (+/- 5) and time of year (+/- 5).

10 what? 5 what?

Percent?? Ppm? Koala bears?

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Worse continuation:

Preindustrial level =270 ppm

See above. Define "preindustrial". When was that, exactly? Did atmospheric CO2 content remain completely identical during [insert year or period of years here, however you have chosen to define "preindustrial"]? How do you figure 270ppm? Remember, you are speaking of a sizable area, not of a specific spot within the whole atmosphere.


All you have to do is read the papers about this to find the details. "preindustrial" usually means before the beginning of the large scale industrialization in Europe or about 200 years ago.

Okay, so all of Earth's existence prior to 200 years ago. Got it.

Did CO2 levels remain completely identical during all of those years? ("all of those years" is defined as ~5,800 years, if you believe in a "Bible thumping" 6,000 year old Earth, even though The Bible says no such thing... or means ~4.54 billion years, if you believe in The Scientific Community consensus).

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
(had been at that level for at least 100,000 years)

How did people measure atmospheric CO2 levels 100,000 years ago? How do people measure those levels today?


Again look at the scientific papers on this. Mainly ice cores in this case.

An ice core at a specific location can provide us with accurate global atmospheric CO2 levels?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!? HOT DIGGITY!!!!!

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:
Current level = 416 ppm

See above.


See above.

See above.

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:
Human contribution: (416-270)/270 = 54%

So, any change in atmospheric CO2 levels from 270ppm is definitely completely a result of human activity?


Yes.

Irrational reasoning, as I will highlight below.

DRKTS wrote:
If CO2 has remained within very narrow limits for thousands of years and then it suddenly jumps by over 50% just as humans emit more of it then that is a pretty good indication.

Paradox.

[1] ANY CHANGE in atmospheric CO2 levels from 270ppm is DEFINITELY COMPLETELY a result of human activity.
[2] Atmospheric CO2 levels CAN CHANGE "within very narrow limits" (from 270ppm) without being a result of human activity.

Which is it?


DRKTS wrote:
This is supported by dead reckoning (increase in fossil fuels burned vs increase in CO2), isotope tracing, and loss of atmospheric O2.

We don't burn fossils for fuel.

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:
Australia is ranked 4th in energy usage per capita (i.e., wasteful)

But emission are not the only problem - coal exports are. Australia is one of the world's leading coal exporter so they are just exporting their pollution. So contribute about 16% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Define "pollution". What "pollution" are you speaking of?


GHGs and aerosols

Define "GHGs". Define "pollution".

DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:
Another slight of hand. The 3% is an annual emission - it builds up year by year.

You're just making up numbers as if they were data. Easily dismissible on sight.


I am using the numbers you quoted.

I didn't quote any.

DRKTS wrote:
Where do you get the 3% from?

It's YOUR number, dude.


3% I guess you did not bother to read the opening post.
20-05-2020 22:16
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
DRKTS wrote:
3% I guess you did not bother to read the opening post.

I stand corrected (my memory failed me). You indeed pulled the 3% number from Duncan.

So was the rest of my post correct? You didn't bother to address anything else within it...
Edited on 20-05-2020 22:18
20-05-2020 23:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
DRKTS wrote:
Measured at what time, exactly?
Is the Mona Loa station equivalent to Earth's whole atmosphere?

Where is Mono Loa?? Never heard of the place. One stations is not equivalent to the whole atmosphere. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
DRKTS wrote:
Okay, so all of Earth's existence prior to 200 years ago. Got it.

No one was measuring global CO2 content 200 years ago. No one can measure it today. Mantras 25c...25g.
DRKTS wrote:
Did CO2 levels remain completely identical during all of those years? ("all of those years" is defined as ~5,800 years, if you believe in a "Bible thumping" 6,000 year old Earth, even though The Bible says no such thing... or means ~4.54 billion years, if you believe in The Scientific Community consensus).

Science doesn't use consensus. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.
Mantra 37e.

No argument presented. Math error (argument from randU, denial of statistical math). Denial of science.


The Parrot Killer
21-05-2020 00:43
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
duncan61 wrote:
Can anyone deny this factoid.The CO2 in the atmosphere is .004% nature makes 97% Australia is responsible for 1.3-1.5% of the 3% manmade carbon emmisions.Interesting math and yet people here are all messed up about there Carbon footprint.


That's a bit inaccurate. The mistake in the conversion from ppm to percentage aside, the natural processes you are referring to do not constitute a net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
If nature was adding almost 33 times as much CO2 to the atmosphere as human activity, the amount of atmospheric CO2 would be increasing waaaaaay faster than it does.
To give you an example: plants do not only consume CO2 (and produce O2) during photosynthesis. They also consume O2 (and produce CO2) in respiration. During daytime, they consume more CO2 than O2 but at night they don't consume any CO2 but still consume O2.
In effect, grown plants are CO2 neutral. Plants are only net "carbon sinks" when they grow.
The whole scheme of emission and absorption of CO2 in natural processes is called "the carbon cycle".

As far as we can tell from ice core data for example, CO2 levels have stayed quite steady somewhere around 250 and 290 ppm or so for the last 10,000 years. Only since humans started burning fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas, has CO2 started to accumulate in the atmosphere in recent history.

duncan61 wrote:
the consideration is as CO2 in the atmosphere increases its effect diminishes.It will plateau and have less effect it does not automaticaly keep doubling the effect.

This is not wrong. However, as I already explained to you elsewhere, the "diminishing" of the effect of CO2 is already contained in the doubling.
An increase from 100 ppm to 200 ppm will have more or less the same effect on temperature as an increase from 200 ppm to 400 ppm which will have again more or less the same effect on temperature as an increase from 400 ppm and 800 ppm.
In the first case we only have to add 100 ppm. For the next doubling we have to add 200 ppm. For the next doubling we have to add 400 ppm and so on.
You need to constantly add more and more CO2 to get the same effect. This does mean, however, that the effect will eventually be saturated.

duncan61 wrote:
That is exactly where I am at.All the SkS stuff is based on the potential of the scientific studies.I have seen no evidence of any predictions in reality.Sea levels not changing weather not changing etc

If you're interested in how well the projections of "mainstream" climate models compare to those of contrarians, here are some impressions for you.
21-05-2020 00:56
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: 416 pmm = 0.04% is the measured concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mona Loa

[face palm] Mauna Loa is just one spot on the planet. Just one. It also happens to be right at the base of an active volcano. The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.

Only if you're downwind from the volcano. If you're upwind, the wind will bring fresh air from the ocean which gives a pretty good "background" reading of atmospheric CO2 levels.

I'll let you in on a secret: They don't just measure CO2 levels at Mauna Loa, they also measure wind direction and speed. When they're downwind from the volcano, the CO2 readings fluctuate wildly within quite short time periods which is easy to spot and flag for elimination. Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

But of course Mauna Loa isn't the only place on the planet where people measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The data from other measuring stations is in pretty good agreement with Mauna Loa.

IBdaMann wrote:
If Mauna Loa is indicating that CO2 levels are 416 ppm then it is reasonable to assume that the atmospheric average is somewhere below 300 ppm. Mauna Loa numbers are simply much higher than reality.

Nope. Near population centres, CO2 concentrations are much higher than out over sea.
Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.
The Mauna Loa measuring station doesn't really have an awful lot of either nearby.
Edited on 21-05-2020 01:25
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Percentages:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact