amishmanish


September 11, 2019, 04:46:15 AM 

it's so simple, yet you seem to want to make it complicated  the year 1800: 0.03% CO_{2}
 the year 2020: 0.04% CO_{2}
that's an easy to understand difference of 0.01%. or an increase of 100 parts per million, if you prefer. I think anyone who followed the math at this point can see who wants to bamboozle, and who's trying to make it easy to understand. Why would anyone want to make it hard to understand, or start to throw insults around? Fine. Let us not worry about the Maths. Lets look at the logic of the nonalarmist viewpoint you are supporting. I request you to help me understand your viewpoint. You are essentially saying that in 1880 CO _{2} was only 0.03% of atmosphere. In 2019 it is only 0.04%. According to you, this should not be taken very seriously. We can safely wait for it to reach maybe 0.5% or 1% and then we could be concerned. Till then we have all this other 99% of atmosphere which is Not CO_{2} and is completely fine and survivable. This is maybe also the reason you feel that saying "An increase of 300 PPM to 400 PPM is a 33% increase" is alarmist. Please let me know if i understand this correctly.







Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.




Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1880


September 11, 2019, 12:11:29 PM Last edit: September 12, 2019, 08:13:52 AM by Carlton Banks 

Fine. Let us not worry about the Maths. yes, let's not. although it is a little strange that the pair of you are continually saying: "3 + 1 = 4 is incorrect, 3 + 1 = 33%" You are essentially saying that in 1880 CO_{2} was only 0.03% of atmosphere. In 2019 it is only 0.04%. ok. It's not just "according to me", but according to every credible climate scientist According to you, this should not be taken very seriously. didn't say that This is maybe also the reason you feel that saying "An increase of 300 PPM to 400 PPM is a 33% increase" is alarmist. Please let me know if i understand this correctly. all I said was "3 + 1 = 4", to which you 2 both replied "no, it's 33%" you consistently evaded the point that 33% increase sounds like a large increase, but it's a large increase in a very small number. which is strange behavior for people who think that facts are important, and who purport to be presenting a factbased argument. I presented a fact, and you both kept trying to divert away from that fact by manipulating the argument. And yet you apparently agree that the fact I presented is indeed factual.




SaltySpitoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2254
Merit: 1960
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


September 11, 2019, 01:34:44 PM Last edit: September 11, 2019, 02:06:39 PM by SaltySpitoon 

And yet you apparently agree that the fact I presented is indeed factual.
It is not, you are doing math wrong. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+calculate+percent+change 0.0000000000000000000000000003 to 0.0000000000000000000000000004 is a 33% change, as is the case with 0.03 to 0.04 or 0.0003 to 0.0004 What you are doing is incredibly dishonest, as I refuse to believe that even you believe what you are saying. This isn't a case where we are doing a difficult problem and came to two separate answers, you are being deceptive by using incorrect math that again, its blatantly obvious to everyone with a middle school education. percent implies a change, an initial and final value and what fraction of the initial value must be added to reach a final value. Again, not hard math. You are arguing that the scale of the initial and final numbers matters. Percentages are not additive like whatever you are trying to do. Please tell me how its deceptive if we do the math correctly? I would expect that 99.99% of people here absolutely understand what I'm saying when I say there has been a 33% increase in CO2 between the time scale we've been discussing assuming a change from 300ppm to 400ppm. *Edit* First, lets keep in mind that we haven't talked about a single controversial topic to this point, we haven't talked about global warming at all, just what is a percent. The reason I'm irritated with you, is that our conversation started when I asked you where you were getting your figure from and presented an example with a 15 year chart and data that I snagged online as to why I was confused by your statement. You accused me of being misleading for some reason, and at that point I assumed you were talking about some other metric besides atmospheric concentration so I asked you to elaborate. Instead, you went on a personal attack when I apologized for misunderstanding you about how it was all some ploy to trick you and others. Then come to find out, I wasn't misunderstanding anything, you were just doing (and are still doing) math incorrectly and making incorrect statements. You've accused me of intentionally misleading others when the sole source of confusion is your own lack of understanding of simple mathematics which you can easily look up online to see that I'm correct. I'm being petty about all of this because of the consideration I showed you only to have it thrown back in my face, and its due to the absolute lowest common denominator of misrepresentation.




Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1880


September 12, 2019, 08:12:44 AM 

3 + 1 = 33%
interesting, do please tell us all again




SaltySpitoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2254
Merit: 1960
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


September 12, 2019, 11:06:52 AM Last edit: September 12, 2019, 12:41:30 PM by SaltySpitoon 

3 + 1 = 33%
interesting, do please tell us all again 4 is 33% of 12, but 0.0004 is also 33% of 0.0012 I guess? Do I need to show my work, or will you believe me? In case you didn't find the math for dummies book solution to your problem, here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T60MwmCpE8I think that there is a problem where its hard to know who to believe, but more so because everyone has a platform to let others know of their revolutionary ideas, even if they are outright wrong. People seem to love the idea of "us" versus authority, when in a lot of cases, authority just means the best at their topic. What you consider common sense doesn't make it right.
My major point in posting in this thread originally was that the difference in knowing who to believe today versus long ago is that today there are an uncountable number of platforms one can get disinformation from people who think they know what they are talking about. This has been a great example.




Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1880


September 13, 2019, 10:06:44 AM 

let's try again
atmospheric CO_{2} has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%
It's impossible to argue with that statement, and the math literally proves it.
Yet you continue to pretend that the nominal difference figure does not exist, and that if you keep repeating the percentage change figure over and over again, that the nominal difference is a fantasy?
You're a liar, @SaltySpitoon, you know exactly what I mean and are continuing to play dumb
answer this question without prevarication:
you keep restating the percentage change figure. Percentage change of what?
the answer is the percentage change in nominal difference, which you keep pretending is my own private delusion you lying toad




SaltySpitoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2254
Merit: 1960
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


September 13, 2019, 01:32:23 PM Last edit: September 13, 2019, 01:49:57 PM by SaltySpitoon 

let's try again
atmospheric CO_{2} has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%
It's impossible to argue with that statement, and the math literally proves it.
Yet you continue to pretend that the nominal difference figure does not exist, and that if you keep repeating the percentage change figure over and over again, that the nominal difference is a fantasy?
You're a liar, @SaltySpitoon, you know exactly what I mean and are continuing to play dumb
answer this question without prevarication:
you keep restating the percentage change figure. Percentage change of what?
the answer is the percentage change in nominal difference, which you keep pretending is my own private delusion you lying toad
Its not your private delusion, I'm sure there are plenty of other kids out there right now having trouble with percents. I know exactly what you are saying, and I'm just saying that you are wrong. You are mathing poorly and making statements that are untrue. % implies as a fraction. Parts per million in our case. Saying there is an increase of 0.01% means that there is an increase of 1 part per 10,000 of whatever the initial condition is. A 0.01% increase of 3 results in 3.0003. A 0.01% increase of 300 parts per million (0.000300) means you'd have 0.00030003 not 0.000400, which is incorrect. atmospheric CO_{2} has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%
The increase is 33%. You can say that an increase from 300ppm to 400 ppm is 100ppm over the last 200 years, that is correct. What you are saying is misleading for this purpose. Lets say that instead of 300ppm to 400 ppm we have 300 to 400 ppb so 0.000000300 to 0.000000400. The change is still 33% however you'd be stating it as 0.00001% which dilutes all meaning from the statistic. We have percents to help us recognize the significance of change. I've pointed you towards more than a few resources at this point. I'm just going to assume you are dense and let anyone else that feels like trying to help you pass your upcoming math quiz contribute. I really wanted you to get that shiny gold star, but I don't have time to help you solve your brain problem if you aren't looking for help. I think you may have better luck with your argument here: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751&page=1they spent 129 pages arguing how many days there are in a week.




Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1880


September 15, 2019, 09:20:07 AM Last edit: September 15, 2019, 09:38:57 AM by Carlton Banks 

ok then, the difference is 0.01% you're making pathetic semantic arguments, really
answer the following question: which is actually the driving factor in the greenhouse effect? is it:  the percentage change in CO_{2}
 the proportion of CO_{2} of the whole
(anyone will tell you it's the proportion of the atmosphere, the change can be from any starting point. there's a colossal difference between a 1% increase in 99% and a 1% increase in 0.99%) you're banging on and on about the percentage increase, when it's not even relevant to the greenhouse effect anyway. the absolute amount is what actually matters, remember, the figure I keep posting, the one you keep disingenuously saying doesn't exist, despite it being a step in the calculations to the irrelevant figure you keep repeatingtl;dr the change doesn't matter, the amount does. if it's changing, then how much it changes to is what matters




Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1880


September 15, 2019, 09:32:40 AM 

(I predict a reply "the percentage increase is the only factor, the increase measured as a percentage is the only thing that's changing" or "no, the difference is 33%")
how are you measuring the percentage change if you keep pretending the absolute difference doesn't exist?
your charge of "can't do basic math" is a joke, in order to hold your position, you're having to avoid using addition and subtraction (the most basic mathematical concepts that even the simplest animals understand) so that you can trick readers into thinking that the absolute difference in 2 measurements does not exist
you're a joke, SaltySpitoon. You literally cannot be serious with this BS.




SaltySpitoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2254
Merit: 1960
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


September 15, 2019, 03:55:37 PM 

Absolute difference is completely useless without some type of scale of the significance of 1 unit. I'm not arguing that 400 ppm  300 ppm = 100 ppm is incorrect, but you can either represent that as a 100ppm increase or a 33% increase, not a 0.01% difference which would be 1.0001 x the initial amount. That is the proper representation. Representation of scientific data is a big deal, you are trying to make an argument, but your argument is completely invalid until you begin to represent your data correctly.
If you could represent it the way you intend to, it seems like your argument is that 100ppm is a small number and is therefore insignificant. By that logic I could say 300 ppm is an equally insignificant number, so CO2 plays no role in our atmosphere. We know that isn't the case, it plays some measurable affect on earth's temperature. If 300 played X effect on temperature, its fair to expect that 400 will play 1.33X effect on however CO2 contributes.
0.000000070 Kg of botulism is enough to kill you. The difference between 0.000000070 and 0.000000140 is only 0.000000070.
If I tried representing something the way you have, I'd be fired and laughed out of the scientific community, so its not me playing word games or just being petty about, "you know what I'm saying man". (redundant disclaimer: I'm not involved in climate science) Get your statements in order and then state them. You can't claim anything based on incorrect math.




Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1880


September 16, 2019, 09:07:47 AM 

I'm not arguing that 400 ppm  300 ppm = 100 ppm is incorrect you've been saying something that sounds very like that half a dozen times. I am glad you have finally conceded the point, will you take back what you said about basic math, seeing as I demonstrated very early on that I know how to calculate both the percentage change and the absolute difference? You claimed me doing a simple subtraction was actually an inept attempt at calculating the percentage difference, but it's plainly obvious that you were trying to use a tactic to confuse people that couldn't follow the math (which, as you yourself said, is so basic that almost nobody would have been confused) but you can either represent that as a 100ppm increase or a 33% increase, not a 0.01% difference which would be 1.0001 x the initial amount. That is the proper representation. I'm saying neither, and I have been consistent in doing so Below, you are agreeing with my argument: 0.000000070 Kg of botulism is enough to kill you. The difference between 0.000000070 and 0.000000140 is only 0.000000070.
it is the absolute amount as part of a whole causes the problem, from either botulism or CO _{2}again (see if you understand this yet): the change doesn't matter, the amount does. if it's changing, then how much it changes to is what mattersthe real question is: is 400ppm CO _{2} (i.e. 0.04%) dangerous?




amishmanish


Today at 10:47:14 AM 

This is where the argument about you calculating the percentage wrongly actually started: parts per million means "how many parts within 1 million parts", i.e. a proportion of a whole (and no different to a simple percentage figure)  300 parts as a percentage of 1 million is: 300 / 1,000,000 * 100 = oh, whaddya know, 0.03%
 400 parts as a percentage of 1 million is: 400 / 1,000,000 * 100 = oh, whaddya know, 0.04%
 the difference between 0.03% and 0.04% is: 0.04  0.03 = no way, it's 0.01
 0.01 as a percentage of 0.03 is, as you say: 0.01 / 0.03 * 100 = 33%
I amply illustrate above that there are 2 relevant ways of measuring change in CO_{2}, absolute change (100 parts per million, equivalent to 0.01%), or the percentage rate of change (the proportion of 100 parts per million of increase in relation to a 300 parts per million baseline) snip @SalySpitoon your argument is cherry picking, manipulative nonsense. and anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics can see it plainly The math is basically settled that if someone asks that How much has CO2 concetration increased from preindustrial levels, they will quote the 2040% figure depending on what baseline you take. Check this BBC report that quotes "has increase by about 40%". This report says "20% increase in less than 40 years"Lets put it to rest as it really doesn't matter how the motley three of us look at the figure in this rather nondescript corner of the BCT forum. Lets just agree that if you can accuse us of saying that "it is alarmist to show 300 PPM to 400 PPM as a 33% increase", then you can be similarly accused of supporting those who want to continue polluting the environment by saying that "Hey, its not a problem, Carbon has only gone up by 0.01%". The real question as you say is: snip the real question is: is 400ppm CO_{2} (i.e. 0.04%) dangerous?
Which is what i wanted to ask from your discussion on percentage increase not being a problem when i said: snip According to you, this should not be taken very seriously. We can safely wait for it to reach maybe 0.5% or 1% and then we could be concerned. Till then we have all this other 99% of atmosphere which is Not CO_{2}and is completely fine and survivable.
This is maybe also the reason you feel that saying "An increase of 300 PPM to 400 PPM is a 33% increase" is alarmist. Please let me know if i understand this correctly.
So yeah, the three of us have been wasting our breath on the percentage argument. When you say whether this is dangerous or not, that is when we get to that stage of climate skepticism that says, "Hey its just not hot enough yet". The basic infographic on any climate report I have seen quotes the worldwide observations like reduced polar ice caps, Receding Glaciers, Erratic Weather patterns. I have spent at least 2 decades seeing the summers getting harsher and watching people face drought conditions. So when i see that report and match it with my personal experience as well as what Discovery/ NG shows on the receding polar ice caps, I go, oh well, maybe it is increasing. I am interested in knowing that what makes you think that 0.04% (+0.01 or 33% increase.. )is not dangerous. We have to consider that if emissions keep increasing at the same rate, this percentage of the total will increase resulting in the 1.5 deg celsius temperature increase that needs to be adhered to as per consensus. What is the harm in erring on the side of caution when its supposedly the planet's inhabitability which is at stake? Like I keep asking and you keep ignoring, What is the solution from your side of the nonalarmist debate. What sources are you referring to? Are there any or you are just feeling colder as years pass by like I feel warmer here around the tropics..?? LOL.. Also, Should I start a separate topic on this if @Saltypitoon and you would be interested AND if we can stop hurling insults and expressing skepticism at each other's mental faculties...??LOL..




