Notices
Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Is 0.01 greater than 0.9?

 
Old 07-11-2019, 09:45 PM
  #1  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 24,975
Received 27 Likes on 27 Posts
Default Is 0.01 greater than 0.9?

Of the 0.1C rise in global temperatures over the last 100 years, humans responsible for 0.01C.

https://www.infowars.com/new-finnish...limate-change/
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:48 PM
  #2  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 24,975
Received 27 Likes on 27 Posts
Default

Incheon, Republic of Korea, October 8 Limiting global warming to 1.5C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5C compared to 2C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday.
https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 07-11-2019, 10:37 PM
  #3  
65Z01
CF Senior Member
 
65Z01's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: SE NY
Posts: 83,198
Likes: 0
Received 153 Likes on 145 Posts
Cruise-In II Veteran
Default

It's a religious thing, rational sheeple wouldn't understand so shouldn't challenge the doctrine just have faith in the clergy...
65Z01 is offline  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:01 PM
  #4  
doorgunner
Doorgunner's '68 Project
Support Corvetteforum!
 
doorgunner's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2013
Location: New Orleans Loo-z-anna
Posts: 20,498
Received 868 Likes on 774 Posts
Default

Consider U.S. coins:

0.01 = would equal a penny.

0.9 = would equal 90 pennies

Consider pounds

0.01 tons = 20 lbs.

0.9 tons = 1,800 lbs

Yuge difference.
doorgunner is offline  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:12 PM
  #5  
virtue4u
CF Senior Member
 
virtue4u's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Posts: 60,457
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
Of the 0.1C rise in global temperatures over the last 100 years, humans responsible for 0.01C.

https://www.infowars.com/new-finnish...limate-change/
And after spending billions worldwide, how much of the 0.01 C degree has man reduced the Earth's temperature?
Any?
virtue4u is offline  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:14 PM
  #6  
1%r
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
1%r's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: Americans First
Posts: 75,831
Received 76 Likes on 54 Posts
St. Jude Donor '03 through '17

Default

Originally Posted by virtue4u View Post
And after spending billions worldwide, how much of the 0.01 C degree has man reduced the Earth's temperature?
Any?
more like trillions
1%r is offline  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:30 PM
  #7  
68/70Vette
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Torrance California
Posts: 26,075
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Atmospheric CO2 amounts to less than 400 molecules of CO2 per million molecules of atmosphere. This is 0.04%. It's seem implausible that such a small concentration could be such a great mover and shaker of the world's temperature. Especially since atmospheric water vapor is very prevalent and in much larger quantities. The US contributes 15% of the worlds CO2 production, so I guess 60 of the 400 molecules is from the US.
68/70Vette is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:29 AM
  #8  
doorgunner
Doorgunner's '68 Project
Support Corvetteforum!
 
doorgunner's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2013
Location: New Orleans Loo-z-anna
Posts: 20,498
Received 868 Likes on 774 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by virtue4u View Post
And after spending billions worldwide, how much of the 0.01 C degree has man reduced the Earth's temperature?
Any?
Al Gore needs another bazillion dollars U.S. (that seems to be the only redeeming value of America) since the temperature has risen sum-more.
.
doorgunner is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:56 AM
  #9  
Jughead
Senior Member since 1492
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Jughead's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2000
Location: 1.Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get me... 2.Build the WALL!
Posts: 73,651
Received 120 Likes on 96 Posts
St. Jude Donor '09
Default

info was peer reviewed?


Jughead is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 09:15 AM
  #10  
BLZNSDL
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Member Since: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,975
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17

Default

with a =/- margin of error of .01 makes it 50/50 it hasn't even moved at all
BLZNSDL is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 09:31 AM
  #11  
99 Driver
CF Senior Member
 
99 Driver's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: Ballwin "fly over country" MO
Posts: 13,293
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
St. Jude Donor '09,'11
Default

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. ~ Michael Crichton's novel, "Jurassic Park"

so...where do we go to get REPARATIONS for all the taxpayers bucks that have been diverted to fund this sham.
99 Driver is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 09:38 AM
  #12  
tikiman
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
tikiman's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Location: A pirate's life is a good life.
Posts: 20,195
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11
Default

"...could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday."

This quote says it all. It has nothing to do with temperature. It has everything to do with wealth redistribution.
tikiman is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:39 AM
  #13  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 24,975
Received 27 Likes on 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jughead View Post
info was peer reviewed?


What do you think?
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:03 AM
  #14  
glbeauchamp
CF Senior Member
 
glbeauchamp's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: Douglas County WI
Posts: 3,080
Received 117 Likes on 109 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 68/70Vette View Post
Atmospheric CO2 amounts to less than 400 molecules of CO2 per million molecules of atmosphere. This is 0.04%. It's seem implausible that such a small concentration could be such a great mover and shaker of the world's temperature. Especially since atmospheric water vapor is very prevalent and in much larger quantities. The US contributes 15% of the worlds CO2 production, so I guess 60 of the 400 molecules is from the US.
Plant life breathes CO2. You would think the tree huggers would want more of it for their leafy friends to thrive. Especially in the rain forests jungle.

Last edited by glbeauchamp; 07-12-2019 at 11:04 AM.
glbeauchamp is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:10 AM
  #15  
Warpdrv
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2018
Location: Milwaukee - ish WISCONSIN
Posts: 844
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

How do you put a measure on the earths temps...?
Warpdrv is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:14 AM
  #16  
BenThere
CF Senior Member
 
BenThere's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2008
Location: Chandler, AZ It's a Dry Heat.
Posts: 16,508
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
What do you think?
Personally, I doubt it. Was there a link to the actual study that I missed?
BenThere is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:20 AM
  #17  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 24,975
Received 27 Likes on 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BenThere View Post
Personally, I doubt it. Was there a link to the actual study that I missed?
Second sentence second word contains link to paper. How did you miss that?
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:30 AM
  #18  
BenThere
CF Senior Member
 
BenThere's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2008
Location: Chandler, AZ It's a Dry Heat.
Posts: 16,508
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
Second sentence second word contains link to paper. How did you miss that?
Dunno...... I couldn't find my new contacts this morning either. Looked all over the house, in the truck, in the Vette..... Looked in the drawer I put 'em in three times before I actually saw them right there in front of my eyes where I put 'em.

Edit: Looks like the publish date make it too early for a peer review.

Last edited by BenThere; 07-12-2019 at 11:32 AM.
BenThere is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:37 AM
  #19  
Torqaholic
CF Senior Member
 
Torqaholic's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2006
Location: Mid-Michigan
Posts: 47,142
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
St. Jude Donor '09
Default

Not greater but that would still make us responsible for a sea level rise of two thousandths of an inch in 300 years.... Can't have that, right?
Torqaholic is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:40 PM
  #20  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 16,064
Received 539 Likes on 324 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BenThere View Post
Personally, I doubt it. Was there a link to the actual study that I missed?
They make you search for the pdf download (it's an easy to read 6 pages):

https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00165


NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT
ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI

Abstract.

In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report
AR5 fail to calculate the in
uences of the low cloud cover changes on the global
temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature
change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house
gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a
very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further
they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order
to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in
the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

1. Introduction

The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scienti c literature.
The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest
ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papers
are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These
models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically
sensitivity values are between 2{5 degrees. IPCC uses these papers to estimate
the global temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity. However, there are
a lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without
using GCM. The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the climate
sensitivity. One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCC
AR5 report. One of his comments concerned the missing experimental evidence for
the very large sensitivity presented in the report [1]. As a response to the comment
IPCC claims that an observational evidence exists for example in Technical
Summary of the report. In this paper we will study the case carefully.

It indicates that the atmospheric climate change influence is driven by low altitude humidity and atmospheric dimming, not CO2.





The report does not discount external solar and cosmic heat inputs, nor does it discount internal cyclical ocean and atmospheric heat capacitance and enthalpy influences. It only resolves the CO2 influence to be corrected as a fraction of the IPCC AR5 estimates.

It's another blow to the settled science believers.
63 340HP is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Is 0.01 greater than 0.9?


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: