• Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!

To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.

Already a member? Log in here.

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by basilio, Nov 13, 2011.

sentifi.com

Aussie Stock Forum Sentifi Top themes and market attention on:

  1. moXJO

    moXJO menace to society

    Posts:
    5,020
    Likes Received:
    938
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Thats my thinking. Otherwise just double the population and your emissions would most likely drop on a "per capita" basis. Especially if they are all poor as sht.
    Manufacturing emission standards are a big culprit. And in reality Trump should be hailed as an environment saint for shifting and slowing down manufacturing in China. He probably reduced emissions more with the trade war then all the other Presidents put together. :D
     
    qldfrog likes this.
  2. bi-polar

    bi-polar

    Posts:
    175
    Likes Received:
    59
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2019
    Coal workers have been among President Donald Trump's strongest supporters,
    Last week, US President Donald Trump said at a rally that the US steel industry was “thriving” under his presidency.
     
  3. chiff

    chiff

    Posts:
    312
    Likes Received:
    91
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    Of course not...but it is just showing what you can do with statistics...I see today the use of coal is increasing in China and India and Australia like exporting more all the time.
     
  4. moXJO

    moXJO menace to society

    Posts:
    5,020
    Likes Received:
    938
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    All under US epa standards. God bless that man;)
     
  5. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    11,925
    Likes Received:
    2,550
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
  6. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    9,355
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Given that Kelvin is an absolute scale it makes no difference. An increase of 1K is an increase of 1K no matter what the actual numbers are.

    For reference however the actual numbers are 287K increasing to 288K.

    Apart from your analogy speed has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    Bearing in mind that the issue is climate change, not a maths degree, I think most people would find the concept that 1/8000 being equal to 0.0125% as being more than sufficient for the purpose.

    As with anything, if the aim is to examine the issue and aid understanding then layman's terms generally win over technical terms. Hence my use of percentages which most people have at least some grasp of, they understand that 50% means half or that 1% means one in a hundred, whereas using decimal numbers adds unnecessary confusion since many do not immediately recognise 0.5 as being "half" or 0.25 as being "quarter". 0.5% is however a concept that most understand to mean half of one percent. Etc.

    In any event, I will simply note that one sure way to spot that someone's avoiding the detail of a subject is an excessive focus on the meaning of words and so on. Politicians, lawyers and anyone else not wanting to answer the question will always dwell on such points. Those seeking to avoid discussion of science may well do likewise.

    Now to recap, using as a base that the earth has warmed 1'C and your comment that solar energy reaching the earth is ~8000 times the energy used by humans (a claim I haven't verified by the way, I'm taking it as is) then:

    In Celsius the earth's temperature measured at the surface has increased from 14'C to 15'C or an increase of 1'C. That figure has been rounded obviously. Expressed in Kelvin this is an increase of 1K from 287K to 288K. In percentage terms this is an increase of approximately 0.35%.

    Using your 1/8000 figure, direct heat emission from human activities has added 0.0125% to the earth's heat input versus the increase in temperature of 0.35%.

    The above suggests that direct heat emission from human activities has made a minor but not zero contribution to observed temperature changes thus far. Practical observation, not detailed here, has previously identified that this effect is quite pronounced in locations with high density heat emission - cities, airports and industrial areas being examples.

    If you consider that my maths is wrong, please present your alternative version focusing on the issue of climate change rather than pedantic aspects of mathematics terminology. :2twocents
     
    wayneL, qldfrog, cynic and 1 other person like this.
  7. rederob

    rederob

    Posts:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    794
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Serious fail - again!
    You stated "the increase in temperature on the earth's surface seems to be ...0.36%"
    That is patently false.
    Your figure is NOT based on the actual temperature of the planet at its surface. The temperature of the planet has ranged less than 20 degrees over the past million years, and never at any time while it has been habitable varied more than that. (In fact you need to go back almost half a billion years to get a greater range.)
    And you refuse to respond to the analogy which presents the exact same issue you have addressed, except instead of temperature it deals with an increase in speed.
    You also stated, yet again, that 1/8000 = 0.0125%
    That remains false.
    Maths are important and yours are not good.
     
  8. bellenuit

    bellenuit

    Posts:
    3,286
    Likes Received:
    407
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Perhaps I am missing something, but 1/8000 is 0.0125% in my books, if used in the context of what percentage of 8000 is 1.
     
    cynic likes this.
  9. rederob

    rederob

    Posts:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    794
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    It was expressed as a fraction:
    1 = 1
    1/8 = 0.125
    1/80 = 0.0125
    qed
     
  10. bellenuit

    bellenuit

    Posts:
    3,286
    Likes Received:
    407
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    The line you posted and said was wrong was 1/8000 expressed as a percentage, not as a fraction. It is in fact correct.

    You also stated, yet again, that 1/8000 = 0.0125%
    That remains false.


    1/8000 = 0.000125 = 0.0125%
     
    cynic and sptrawler like this.
  11. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    9,355
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    If you disagree with the temperature I've used and that approximately 1K (or 1'C) of warming has taken place since the mid-1700's then I suggest you contact NASA and the IPCC and request they correct their data. :2twocents
     
  12. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    9,355
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    I've made it extremely clear that I am referring to a percentage and that the reason is simply that a substantial portion of the public doesn't recognise 0.5 as meaning half or 50% etc. As with any subject, there's no reason to use terms which bring unnecessary confusion unless confusion is the objective.

    The subject is climate not maths so there's no reason to not use widely understood terms to convey the message provided the units are stated which I have done.

    1/8000 = 0.0125%

    Tell someone it's 0.000125 and that's meaningless to a large portion of the population. Those who are familiar with that would in general have a better understanding of maths and no difficulty accepting the use of a percentage figure instead - we're talking about climate not purist maths and I've intentionally used terms that most people can understand.

    Likewise I could say that Kelvin is Kelvin, it's not measured in degrees, but if someone wants to say "degrees Kelvin" well then that's not actually going to matter in the context of the discussion so there's no need to be worrying about such detail given the subject at hand. Far more useful to focus on the actual numbers and their significance than the semantics of what to call them. :2twocents
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2019
  13. qldfrog

    qldfrog

    Posts:
    2,985
    Likes Received:
    1,283
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    A side note but interesting findinghttps://interestingengineering.com/a-key-climate-evolution-theory-may-have-been-discredited
    The cooling of earth had been attributed to storage of atmospheric co2 by newly exposed rocks and erosion leading this co2 to end up stored in sea/ deposits
    Well that does not seem to be right as per that study
    It could be again that focusing on co2 as the reason for the cooling/heating of earth is wrong
    This is pre industrial civilisation so not related to human interaction, but relevant as to the role of co2 in the climate
     
  14. rederob

    rederob

    Posts:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    794
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    I know what you did, and I immediately called it dodgy - because you turned my points into something they were not.
    A change in temperature of 1Kelvin is expressed in climate science in context with the period it changed through, and as anomaly against a prescribed baseline (usually an average temperature over a given period). You will find that as standard practice in climate science because it avoids the issue you tried to overcome.
    What you did, effectively, was to propose that 1K was inconsequential, because - at 0.36% - it was only a fractional change in temperature measured as a percentage of the temperature measurement system (and not of what was being measured), thereby implying that the planet was at some point 0Kelvin, which it has never been.
    With respect to the sun's energy versus human energy consumption I initially said "Why would you need to calculate an amount of energy which IS trivial." That was because it would take about 8000 times longer for humans to add an equivalent amount of energy to Earth. In this context humans are an extremely small fraction as effective as the sun in terms of heating the planet. That small fraction is 1/8000 and it is a nonsense to convert it to 100% and do what you did. Moreover, it is conceptually simple to explain that the sun is 8000 times more powerful than humans in terms of adding energy to Earth.
    On the other hand, the addition of greenhouse gases by by humans can, in a matter of hundreds of years, change the physics of warming and effect a rate of change in global temperature that has never before been observed.
     
    basilio likes this.
  15. rederob

    rederob

    Posts:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    794
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    That is more bad climate science maths.
    The increase in global temperature has to do with the greenhouse effect preventing heat energy escaping from Earth.
    Irradiance has been declining, on average, since the 1970s.
    While the 1/8000 relationship has been cumulative and never had a zero starting point wrt to the base period for the 1Kelvin change.
     
    basilio likes this.
  16. rederob

    rederob

    Posts:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    794
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    No - it wholly supports the AGW theory.
    However, it suggests a different "mechanism whereby, in addition to deep-sea dissolution, changes in marine calcification acted to modulate carbonate compensation in response to reduced weathering linked to the late Neogene cooling and decline in atmospheric partial pressure of carbon dioxide."
     
    basilio likes this.
  17. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    11,925
    Likes Received:
    2,550
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    It wasn't long ago medical science, was blaming fat intake for all our health issue, now it seems the science has changed and sugar is the main culprit.:rolleyes:
     
  18. basilio

    basilio

    Posts:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Give over 5 minutes to understand how critical our climate situation is from a 16 year who represents the billions of people will have to live through the consequences of our failings.
     
  19. wayneL

    wayneL Rotaredom

    Posts:
    17,461
    Likes Received:
    1,113
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Utterly cringeworthy.

    Her handlers should be indicted for child abuse, because sometime soon, she is going to blow the **** up.

    Never have I been more appalled by you beta cretins.
     
    Klogg, qldfrog and cynic like this.
  20. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    11,925
    Likes Received:
    2,550
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Maybe she could make an appeal to the striking kids, that went to Hyde Park, to take their rubbish with them next time rather than leave it on the ground. All rallies make a mess, one would think they would cater for them beforehand, rather than rely on existing infrastructure.
     
    wayneL likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page