The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[ednksu]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

It's increased by .01 pp, or 33%. There is a big difference there because percentages are unit-less and coming up with the difference in percentage points that CO2 constitutes in the atmosphere gives you a number that means nothing at all. It's like saying the decline of the blue whale is insignificant because it made up far less than 1% of all oceanic life in the first place.

Well if a problem was being blamed on the number of blue whales in the ocean.... then yes, it would be like that. I didn't think you were this libtarded!

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

Is it a tiny number? .01% of a very large number might still be a very large number.

I don't think they understand how numbers work.

[sys]

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

"pfft, that's not a 10x dose of morphine.  here look at the label, there's 5 mg in this ml, and 50 mg in this one, just a 4.5% difference."   

[CNS]

This idea of rich countries paying poor countries is bullshit,though.  Straight to corrupt pockets would be my guess.

Sent from my SM-P607T using Tapatalk

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

"pfft, that's not a 10x dose of morphine.  here look at the label, there's 5 mg in this ml, and 50 mg in this one, just a 4.5% difference."   

What are you even talking about?

[sys]

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

"pfft, that's not a 10x dose of morphine.  here look at the label, there's 5 mg in this ml, and 50 mg in this one, just a 4.5% difference."   

What are you even talking about?

i was making fun of you.

[michigancat]

lol I thought you claimed to be good at math, K-S-U

[slobber]

Some of you would have benefited from clicking Ching's link.


Gonna win 'em all!

[Tobias]

what a delightful turn

[EMAWican]

Lol. Should have an interesting deflection strategy forthcoming.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

It's increased by .01 pp, or 33%. There is a big difference there because percentages are unit-less and coming up with the difference in percentage points that CO2 constitutes in the atmosphere gives you a number that means nothing at all. It's like saying the decline of the blue whale is insignificant because it made up far less than 1% of all oceanic life in the first place.

Well if a problem was being blamed on the number of blue whales in the ocean.... then yes, it would be like that. I didn't think you were this libtarded!

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

Is it a tiny number? .01% of a very large number might still be a very large number.

Ok bub. If you consider 3/100ths of 1 percent a big number, ok.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Lol. Should have an interesting deflection strategy forthcoming.

You're seeing it already. Quibbling over semantics.

[Emo EMAW]

Chingon's link supported KSUw's point of view.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Chingon's link supported KSUw's point of view.

They're quibbling over me saying "percent" instead of "percentage point." Math smack. They'd rather talk about that than admit the warmers are obsessing over a 33% increase in a gas that constitutes a tiny fraction of the atmosphere - 3/100ths of 1 percent. Oooohh, but it's a 33% increase (from .03 to .04)!

This all started with this gem of idiocy:

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks. 

[star seed 7]

 

[slobber]

KSUW, you should learn that it is okay to be quiet in an argument. Even when there is supporting information already on the table, you continue to argue your point and make comments that only hurt you (even if only in appearance).


Gonna win 'em all!

[Rage Against the McKee]

Chingon's link supported KSUw's point of view.

No, it pointed out where he was wrong.

[renocat]

Big old laugh till you fart.  Forbes is reporting electric cars can only go about 1/2 the distance in cold climates as in warm climates like California.   This puts a chastity belt the climate climaxes carbon reduction screwing crusade.

[sonofdaxjones]

A rare moment of clarity for SOSJK, showing it's really about control, a handful of companies and people getting insanely more wealthy then they already are, and 3rd world despots getting handouts:

COP#21 aka the 21st last chance to save the world, or go spend a lot of money, expand a lot of fossil fuels and eat a bunch of butter soaked French food:

The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.  John Kerry @ COP21

[sonofdaxjones]

How much you ask?   $2.5 TRILLION dollars . . . we'll work real hard to reduce our emissions for $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS . . . term arrangements are available . . . yes, that may be a gun.


http://insideclimatenews.org/news/01102015/india-promises-slash-emissions-global-climate-treaty-indc

[Ptolemy]

What exactly did The Kyoto and Montreal Protocols do for the climate that we need anything out of Paris? Kyoto was supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the Left says that last year was the warmest on record. Montreal was supposed to save the ozone layer and the ozone hole is bigger than it has ever been since we have been measuring it for 35 years out of the earth's 4.5 billion... 

[star seed 7]

 

[sonofdaxjones]

CPLJB has been tapping out a lot lately.

Sad, but 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

CPLJB has been tapping out a lot lately.

Sad, but 

I have found people that laugh at everything generally have nothing meaningful to add to a conversation.

[star seed 7]

unseasonably warm today

[ednksu]

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2015/12/09/everything-senator-ted-cruz-said-about-climate-change-in-this-npr-interview-was-wrong/

Always great to find people saying the same things you are.  The only way to accept the Cruz/Dax position is to totally reject the scientific method.