Would AGW be considered a Science if people were AWARE of how weak their math & science skills are?

>>Would AGW be considered a Science if people were AWARE of how weak their math & science skills are?<<

That's a silly question coming from you...

>>People who suck at sports know they suck.<<

Not usually. How many golfers do you see on the course who blame their clubs for being crap and that's why they can't hit the ball straight or farther than 150 yds.

>>People who suck at relationships know they suck.<<

bahahaha! I've seen many relationships where some guy/girl blames their partner for everything that is wrong with their relationship while their partner is convinced there is something wrong with them self or that they could have done better... In reality, there is a 50/50 chance that the one blaming is the biggest problem in the relationship.

>>So why do most Warmons think they are good & math & science?<<

Some of us have a very firm grasp on our strengths and limitations.

>>I have repeatedly been unable to explain to Warmons why 100ppm & 0.01% are the same number...<<

No you haven't. Well, not that I've seen anyway, but then I don't come here every day. Would you care to provide an example? Sorry, I forgot who I'm asking...

>>Is there something about Math & Science that creates the illusion of competence?<<

Look! There is a sale on mirrors at Wal-Mart!

>>Or is it something about believing in Planetary Salvation that creates this illusion?<<

Umm...no.

Edit: [additional details]

>>@Gringo - [...] And when you add water the barrel gets HARDER to tip.>>

Um...the weight increases, but the center of gravity rises. Think about it.

[I'm assuming by the wording of his example that it isn't stable to begin with.]

>>@Vampire - No seriously, check out Dook & Jeff - unit conversion just kind of escapes them.<<

I still don't see it. At worst, perhaps they are confused by the liberties you enjoy taking with how you are stating concentrations.

>>But I grant that Golf is a Sport in much the same way Global Warming is a Science.<<

Science is science. Global warming is a scientific theory. Golf certainly is a sport, though I would tend to agree that it is one of the most boring sports to what on TV. If you need a different example, I've played tennis with people who blame their racket or the court or their shoes for their poor performance...

>>@Dook - No really, it's hard to tell a Warmon that 100ppm cyanide is the same as 0.01% cyanide.<<

No, I think we all get that...

>>They just go off comparing it to salt & sugar & British Prime Ministers.<<

I think the point is that 100ppm of cyanide is the same as 0.01% sugar as far as concentrations go, but not as far as the effect if you drink it.

>>@Gas - If the Warming virtually stops<<

The warming hasn't stopped. In fact it has very far from stopped...

>>@Jeff - If CO2 has increase by 100ppm, then it has also increased by 0.01%. It's the same fricken number.<<

If the original concentration of CO2 was 100ppm and it increased by 100ppm, then using 0.01% is an obvious misrepresentation, no matter how you protest that it's accurate. It's not accurate because you didn't stipulate that you were referring to the whole atmosphere. In other words, you increased the total amount of gas in the atmosphere by 0.01%, however the concentration of CO2 was increased by 100%.

>>@jimz - You & Vampire may have a point. I may be generically overstating the human capacity for awareness.<<

My point is that human awareness doesn't discriminate by party/nationality/race/sex/orientation/etc. Evidently AGW deniers also deny that they are just another group of humans with all the same failings that entails. However, I seem to see a lot less independant thinking on your side.

>>@Chem - percent is parts per hundred. ppm is parts per million. 0.01% is 100ppm.<<

bahahaha Don't you mean 0.01% is 0.01pph?

BTW, I'm sure that Chem Flunky will admit the mistake. How many AGW deniers admit when they make a mistake?

>>JFTR 40% isn't even half of doubled & it's the exact same number as 400,000 ppm.<<

That's 40pph to you, mister...

_

Who has disputed it, what we have said is that volume in the total atmosphere is not the issue, we all know deniers like yourself try to push 0.01% (or 0.039%) because it make Co2 sound like a tiny issue, when any from "grade school" would know that it is the effect, not the volume that is the issue you can play the tiny percentage game all you want, it will not change the fact Co2 is a much stronger GH gas than water vapor and that water vapor has not really risen while Co2 is up almost 40% on the pre-industrial level.

If you want to play at being clever try working out why for the total GH effect the Earth temp is ~33c warmer and ~1% water vapor contributes ~30c of that rise yet just 0.03% Co2 adds ~3c to that, clearly it is a far stronger GH gas, the near 1c rise in average global temps show that pretty clearly.

We "Warmons" have explained this to you on many occasions sometimes using quite simply language yet you still seem to fail to grasp the basic concept and continue to try and claim the volumetric comparison to the entire atmosphere, rather than the effect, sorry it is you who have shown who is living an "illusion" one I think, you don't want to leave.

Which is why you now fall to all the insults !

Trevor: Careful calling out the pretend geologist or he may accuse you of have said (in your I.D.) you where born on Mars.

Phoenix: "@antarctic - CO2 is more like non issue. Just trying to figure out why you don't know that."

I see (as usual you can't address the point) Co2 has a marked effect on the GH effect and the levels are up ~40%, with a matching temp rise, sea level rise and retreating glaciers world wide, what do you need to show you what is happening here (other than some real science education)

I see nothing in any of your responses here that address the effect (not the volume) is the issue or that Co2 (pound for pound) is a far stronger GH gas than water vapor, I can see why you would not address these points as if you try, your entire line of BS falls apart, but then I think you know that.

PQ,

Nobody dispute that 100ppm is the same as 0.01% but that is NOT the point that people are making. Time and again it’s been pointed out that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppmv to 390ppmv this is NOT, as you claim, a 0.01% increase. 390 ÷ 280 does NOT equal 0.01 which you so often claim it does.

For a moment let’s forget all about climate change and use a different scenario. There’s one million people who live in a city, in 2010 doctors recorded 280 cases of measles, in 2011 they recorded 390 cases of measles. What is the increase in the incidence of measles? You would claim that it’s increased by 0.01%. It hasn’t. It’s increased by 39%.

I couldn’t begin to estimate the number of times this has been explained to you but still you refuse to accept it. I know you’re not an idiot, but I also know that you’re deliberately being deceptive by claiming the amount of CO2 has only increased by 0.01%.

As for thinking that it’s the Warmons who suck at math and science – you might want a reality check here. There have been many questions posed on here that require a comprehension of math and science in order to answer them, I rarely see the skeptics of deniers attempting to answer them but there’s plenty of warmons who sail through the questions with ease.

Consider also, there are numerous people who contribute in this section of answers that have degrees and PhD’s in relevant subjects and as far as I’m aware every one of the them accepts that global warming is happening. I’m not aware that the skeptics and deniers have so much as a single such qualified person amongst their numbers. Clearly the knowledge and expertise lies on the side of the warmons.

- - - - - - - - -

EDIT: COMMENT TO JEFF (AND JIM)

If Jim wants to have a one to one debate then I’m more than willing to oblige. I’d be happy to take part in a telephone or video conference or to use some other medium allowing real time communication between several people. It would be very revealing.

Jim – I thought after your humiliating 31-0 defeat you’d given up on calling me out. Please let me know which recent questions this applies to so I can go and demonstrate once again that you’re wrong. Do you want me to start calling you out whenever you make a mistake? In the past I’ve always ignored your numerous errors but if you’d like me to highlight them for you I’d be happy to oblige.

- - - - - - - -

EDIT: RE YOUR ADDED DETAILS

The accepted unit of measurement for atmospheric concentration of a gas is parts per million by volume, for the very rare gases parts per billion or even parts per trillion may be used. If you think there’s been a unit change then you’re wrong. And in any event, what difference would a unit change make? Percentage or ppmv – it conveys exactly the same info.

Which is faster – a car travelling at 0.000000149 C, another car travelling at 0.130 mach, one travelling at 44.704 metres per second, one at 48.889 yards per second, one at 86.898 knots, one at 100.000 miles per hour and finally one travelling at 160.934 kilometres per hour. Your logic seems to imply that the car travelling at 160.934kph is the fastest one because it’s the biggest number. But of course, they’re all the same, just expressed using different units.

For clarity, which of the following hypothetical statements is mathematically correct? The amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere has increased from 100 parts per million by volume to 200 ppmv, this increase in the amount of hydrogen can be expressed as…

A) An increase of 0.01%

B) An increase of 100%

C) An increase of 1 / 10,000

D) An increase of 1 / 1

E) An increase of 100 ppmv

A complete analysis of the issue would also have to include opponents of current global warming theory. How many errors in basic math and science do they make? How many times do they draw statistical conclusions without using any numbers?

Speaking of drawing statistical conclusions without using numbers...

"why do most Warmons think they are good & math & science?"

Got numbers?

That reminds me of a story I once heard. Two cars collided on a busy freeway. They stopped their cars right where it happened, in the middle lane. They both got out to argue about whose fault it was. It wasn't long before they both got run over by a tractor trailer.

You say global warming is a theory, not a fact? Well, that's incorrect. The fact that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate is a fact. The only thing being argued about is WHY.

The ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. That is a fact, not a theory.

The Eastern US set a record this March. Not by a little, but by an almost unimaginable 8 degrees! Almost always in previous years, when records were set for an entire month, the record was broken by a fraction of a degree.

From what I have seen, and I've seen a lot, scientists are almost unanimous in agreeing that global warming is a serious problem, and the overwhelming majority of them agree that it is at least exacerbated by, if not entirely caused by greenhouse gasses. Most of the ones who disagree are sponsored by conservative think tanks, or corporations who are responsible for a substantial portion of those gasses. So it doesn't surprise me that they are full of hot air.

If you take a good, close unbiased look at the numbers, there is no denying that greenhouse gasses are causing a serious problem, and will continue to do so until or unless something is done about it. You deniers are the same type of people who claimed it was just a coincidence that eagles were on the verge of distinction, before a few sensible people agreed that DDT was a problem for the environment, and I imagine you probably say that it's another strange coincidence that eagles have made such an amazing rebound in the forty years since DDT was banned.

The problem with the .01%/100ppm thing is that we frequently use percentages in a way we do not use ppm.

If I say "this increased by 100 ppm", there is one and only one thing I could possibly mean by it. It means "I have increased the concentration of this substance such that, if you counted 1 million particles, there would be 100 more particles of this than there were previously"

If I say "this increased by .01%", I *could* mean what I said for 100 ppm, but I more typically mean "If you multiply the previous concentration of this by .0001, you will get the new concentration of this". Which is a patently false statement with regards to the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Using the normal and customary way we use percentages, atmospheric CO2 has increased ~40%. As in, almost doubled. Increasing something by a hundredth of a percent, relative to its previous value, is obviously trivial. Increasing that thing by 40% is obviously *nontrivial*.

Or, to put it another way: ppm carries with it an implied "relative to the total" that is always present. We never use ppm to refer to a difference in magnitude between the previous value and the new value, and nothing can go above 1,000,000 ppm. Percentage, used without qualifiers, carries with it an implied "relative to the previous value", when it is used to talk about a change. Only when you explicitly include a qualifier such as "as a percentage of the total atmosphere" does percentage imply "relative to the total" rather than "relative to the previous value" for changes. This is clear when you consider that you can meaningfully talk about "that went up 200%", which would be 2,000,000 ppm, which, as previously discussed, is impossible.

Do you get it now, or will you keep bleating "CO2 has only increased by .01%" like clever word tricks will erase the actual mathematics of the situation?

edit:

or, to put it a third way.

If I said I had increased the amount of cyanide in your tea by .01%, you would likely still drink it without hesitation. If I said I had increased the amount of cyanide in your tea *to* .01%, you, at the very least, had better not drink too much of that tea...

son of edit:

You're right, I did the math wrong, it's not nearly doubled, it's only added almost half again as much. I was probably tired when I posted this.

But we *use* percentage in a way we *do not use* parts per million. We can say "That increased by 200%". That is a valid statement. But "That increased by 2,000,000 parts per million" is never a valid statement. There can *never* be more than a million parts per million. But something *can* change by more than 100%, because we use percentages to compare 2 numbers.

Or, to put it another way (mostly repeating myself, maybe if I say it enough times you'll listen):

A change of 100 ppm *always always always and only* means out of a million parts, there are 100 more or less of the thing that's changing. Never anything proportional to the previous concentration, just a straight count the old concentration, count the new concentration, and subtract.

A change of .01% can mean out of 100 parts, there's .01 more or less of the thing that's changing. But, more typically--that is, how *normal* human beings use the term in *normal* conversation--a change of .01% means "multiply the previous concentration by 1.0001 or .9999".

Now, if you're talking about the concentration relative to the atmosphere, rather than the *change* in concentration, then, yes, .01% is the same as 100 ppm. But that doesn't mean it's not, at the very least, misleading to say that a 100 ppm change, that is about 40% how people *normally* use the term, is a change of .01%.

Or, to put it yet another way. We can use percentage for either concentration, or ratios. When we are talking about a change, we usually use percentage for ratios rather than absolute concentration. We can *only* use parts per million for concentration, never for ratios.

Want me to think of 5 other ways to say it?

Why is it so hard for Pheonix quill to understand common sense? Why is it so hard for Pheonix Quill to understand that, while his number is for the entire atmosphere, less than 2% of the atmosphere are gasses specific to what he's talking about? Why does he not understand that his 0.01% number is complete nonsense when discussing the radiating effects of CO2? Is Pheonix Quill intentionally trying to be stupid or does it come naturally? He has said that he knows that less than 2% of the atmosphere are greenhouse gases yet he continues to completely ignore it and instead carrying on posting his nonsense regarding his CO2 percentage of the entire atmosphere. What do you think is wrong with him?

jimZ: There are many websites out there where users can go and have a point by point debate with another individual. Given your statements regarding the 'stupidity' of warmists as of late I'm sure that you wouldn't mind having one of them with, say, someone like Trevor? You've tried calling him out in here recently. All your arguments consist and have always consisted of is "I don't know therefor no one else does either." Perhaps you two should get involved in one of these sites and post it here for all of us to watch?

Pheonix Quill: I see, once again, you don't tell the whole story. It did not increase by 0.01%. It increased by about 40%. It increased IT'S PERCENTAGE IN THE ATMOSPHERE by 0.01%. How much stupider do you have to be to understand the difference? Do you need someone to help you with pretty pictures so you can finally understand? Do you have math problems? do you need to go back to grade 4? Quick, What is this: (390-280)/280*100? That is your homework for today.

<<I have repeatedly been unable to explain to Warmons why 100ppm & 0.01% are the same number...>>

The problem here is not that warmons do not realize that. The real issue is that deniers simply either refuse to understand or cannot grasp the notion that even a minimal increase in 'parts per million' can be sufficient to put a system out of balance.

When you have a barrel almost full with water that will tip over the moment it is 100% full, even the smallest 'parts per million' increase in volume will inevitably increase the risk of the barrel tipping over.

Why is that so hard to understand?

When you finish 7th grade, ask the middle school teacher if 100 ppm of that incredibly versatile and beneficial substance cyanide, dissolved in water, is the same as 100 ppm of salt or 100 ppm or sugar likewise dissolved. THEN, try to learn what the carbon cycle is. If the teacher is a socialist devil like Margaret Thatcher then you may as well drink the cyanide solution since the world has clearly gone to hell anyway so why not enjoy a little tasty plant food in the meantime?

Basic physics , chemistry and biology are not the warmons strongest areas

Anyway I thought it was widely accepted as a religion not a science.