Does .001 of Atmosphere Control Earth's Climate?!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

 

https://www.cfact.org/2019/11/08/does-one-ten-thousandth-of-the-atmosphere-control-earths-thermostat/

Does one ten thousandth of the atmosphere control Earth’s thermostat?

See both images. 

The temperature is going down to 9 degrees tonight. We have about eight inches of snow in Central Illinois and it is still falling. We are in the middle of Fall, not winter. Records falling all over the country. We need to increase the rate of Global Warming. See my climate topic Global Warming AKA Climate Change and Just Plain Weather https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit#

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

My question is:

If every cow on the planet happened to belch, and/or fart, in unison, that is, at exactly the same time, would all glacial ice on the planet eventually disappear as a result?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

0.01% of a very large number can be huge.

Climate change "alarmists" are worried about a 2 degree change - that is a very small difference.

275.15K isn't much more than 273.15K...

Edited November 12, 2019 by Enthalpic

[remake it + 288]

9 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Does one ten thousandth of the atmosphere control Earth’s thermostat?

Mr Ronwagn, to tackle this question one needs to know why it is being called a "thermostat," and if it is because it affects the flow of energy then the component gases of the atmosphere need to be assessed according to how incoming and outgoing radiation are treated so if for example the one dot in 10000 were sodium hexaflouride then the potential to affect (increase) temperature would fill every dot 2 times: in other words it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog... if that helps.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I prefer a rudder analogy of how a small rudder turns a large ship. Anyway, I will only believe in global warming when the ocean starts to rise at a much more rapid rate than it is. Even if that occurs we will not know for sure what caused it. The earth has many areas, above sea level, that were once ocean bottoms. All of southern Florida and much of California are two. 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/

Edited November 12, 2019 by ronwagn

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

My question is:

If every cow on the planet happened to belch, and/or fart, in unison, that is, at exactly the same time, would all glacial ice on the planet eventually disappear as a result?

Douglas you have a cow fetish!🤣

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

0.01% of a very large number can be huge.

Climate change "alarmists" are worried about a 2 degree change - that is a very small difference.

275.15K isn't much more than 273.15K...

It was 0.001% , you're miles out!

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

This looks like a pretty consistent rise which would indicate global warming/climate change scare stories aren't correct, but just a natural warming of the planet.

Surely the graph would be a hockey stick effect with levels rising logarithmically quicker year on year, or am I missing something?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

It was 0.001% , you're miles out!

Pff what is an order of magnitude mistake when you are dealing with outright denialists? 

#StillCloserToTheTruth

[PE Scott + 563]

I mean, it's one thing to deny the globe is warming. It's another thing to deny the globe is warming as a result of human activity. 

I am still on the fence as to how much of global warming is natural vs anthropogenic. I'm also on the fence about if humans have a solid enough grasp on these types of things to start "engineering" climates through various means. 

To me, the focus on CO2 seems over emphasized. Addressing shipping fuels, especially on tankers that go anywhere near ice, might have a larger impact on ice melting for example than our increasing/decreasing CO2 concentrations.

 To the arguments credit though, even low concentrations of some gasses can be fatal if inhaled. As another analogy for those in the oilfield, just look at what a change of 0.1gpt in FR can have on treating pressures.

Again, I'm not defending CO2 as an anthropogenic gas, I'm just saying low concentrations aren't necessarily benign.

[remake it + 288]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

It was 0.001% , you're miles out!

100%  = 1

10%    = 1/10

1%      = 1/100

0.1%   = 1/1000

0.01% = 1/10,000

So please check math.

Or we then claim - using your skills - that as 0.001 = 1/100,000 you are 90,000 times off.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

I’m not 90,000 out of anything you idiot!

i didn’t make any “claims” as you say!

and I’m not saying I have any math skills ( far from truth be told)

I was actually poiting out that Enthalpic had missed his decimal point but as usual you try to belittle people and claim you are some sort of super intellect when the truth is you can not grasp any cogent argument anyone ever gives you!

you are a sad troll, FACT!

Edited November 12, 2019 by Rob Plant

[remake it + 288]

 

4 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

1. Decimals

   We have seen that to the left of the decimal place, the digits represent 1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's, and so on. To find the value of a decimal place, we divide the value of the decimal place to the left of it by 10. 

   Well, we do the same thing with digits to the right of the decimal place! 

   Let's look again at the sequence of numbers 1000, 100, 10, 1, and continue the pattern to get new terms by dividing previous terms by 10:

    

   •   .1 = 1/10
      .01 = 1/100
     .001 = 1/1000

     

      

   So just as the digits to the left of the decimal represent 1's, 10's, 100's, and so forth, digits to the right of the decimal point represent 1/10's, 1/100's, 1/1000's, and so forth.

Oh dear!

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

This looks like a pretty consistent rise which would indicate global warming/climate change scare stories aren't correct, but just a natural warming of the planet.

 

The logical flaws of that are as follows: fails to show rates of change over time (therefore you have assumed rather than proved a "consistent rise"); no evidence of global scare stories were offered, so you created a "straw man" fallacy; and you have assumed that the planet is warming naturally, whereas it is possible (actually based on data, more probable) that solar phases should have seen the planet naturally cooling. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

50 minutes ago, remake it said:

 

Oh dear!

Yep Troll

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

52 minutes ago, remake it said:

 

Oh dear!

Blocked again

never to come back👍

[remake it + 288]

6 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yep Troll

Your thinking is regularly flawed but you want to blame others.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Pff what is an order of magnitude mistake when you are dealing with outright denialists? 

#StillCloserToTheTruth

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

19 minutes ago, remake it said:

Your thinking is regularly flawed but you want to blame others.

Yes it must just be me

everyone on here agrees with you all of the time as your logic on topics such as the size of China etc is clearly flawless.

Who am I blaming and for what? You ? For being a troll? 
oh yes!

Tell me what do you actually do for a living? Seriously I want to know

[Guest]

LOL I knew your blocking would last 10 minutes Rob.

It's an addiction haha, you just have to see ...

[remake it + 288]

9 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yes it must just be me

everyone on here agrees with you all of the time as your logic on topics such as the size of China etc is clearly flawless.

Who am I blaming and for what? You ? For being a troll? 
oh yes!

Tell me what do you actually do for a living? Seriously I want to know

If you understood the nature of your math error, then the other questions naturally resolve.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Boy, am I glad I triple checked my percentage change from the fraction. I had to refer to a couple of pages and I was one order of magnitude off at first. I saw this coming. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by ronwagn

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

9 hours ago, DayTrader said:

LOL I knew your blocking would last 10 minutes Rob.

It's an addiction haha, you just have to see ...

lured in again!!

Damn it!

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

That would be funny if scientists said there are only two genders.

There are certainly more variations than normal XX and XY

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

That would be funny if scientists said there are only two genders.

There are certainly more variations than normal XX and XY

Yeah, Jan already laid into me on the variations (such as hermaphrodites) which I was already aware of.  But they are statistically negligable as far as the general discussion about genders.  No, there are not 57 genders.