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.
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.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.
All under US epa standards. God bless that man
Serious fail - again!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.
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.
I know what you did, and I immediately called it dodgy - because you turned my points into something they were not.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.
That is more bad climate science maths.
No - it wholly supports the AGW theory.
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.
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.
