It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
The entire population of Germany wasn't insane under Hitler, they just believed his ravings. Im speaking of leaders, not followers.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Im about to give up on replying to you. You don't discuss. You deflect and spin, dance a little further. You disagree with my calculation. Explain to me how its not applicable? Its not a precise measurement, but it still illustrates the point. But I think your goal was to attempt to invalidate my argument if I could not do the mathematical equations to support it, since they involve an above average level of mathematics.
But, rather than go to all that trouble...lets take a different angle. You stated 9-26% of GW is from carbon. (Ever wonder why that is such a large variable? thats because the science behind it is built on guesswork and inference!)
Total warming vs average is .4C, but I'll give you the .7C vs the 1860 temp, nonetheless. We can skew it your way, it won't matter.
So, in 150 years, carbon has increased the temperature of the earth 0.063 - 0.182C, for an average of .00042 - .00121C a year! Those numbers are so low as to be statistically irrelevant, once you figure in variability factors, such as volcanic activity and meteorological influences. Happy now?
I took your numbers, for ALL CARBON...not even just man made...and showed how silly it all is. Would you like me to do out the math for just the man made carbon? It will just show that we have a trace effect at best.
What does this tell us? It tells us that environmental responsibility is always a good idea.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
You are familiar with the concept of using literary devices such as metaphors, similes, hyperbole, etc to illustrate a point?? Thats like 9th grade english. But its sure a good way to not address the data, because you can't refute it.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by melatonin
Also, about the stupid PPB arguement..yes, i know what that means. Thats another personal attack in a way, because Ive shown enough familiarity with science for you to assume I know what that means, as well as the fact that I used it in a statement accurately. You are just twisting things again.
Hallelujah, we can measure down to parts per billion. YOU DO REALIZE THAT WE ARE NOT MEASURING EVERY PART OF THE ATMOSPHERE?? We measure SAMPLES. If you took your samples from major urban areas, you'd get a high number. If you took them from the middle of the Amazon, you'd get another. If you took them at different altitudes, you'd get a different number. MEANING THAT YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH AN ABSOLUTE QUANTITY....because all measurement locations are going to reflect different numbers. Do you have any idea of the processes involved, or do you just parrot facts?
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Well, apparently I am not allowed to continue to discuss this, as my post was removed for being too correct. Censorship lives! Enjoy your delusions.