T1B

Mikey wrote:

88 wrote:
Is this an exponential decline?

Depends on the time increment you use.

It might be logarithmic.
If you need help with that, just ask Dins.

88 wrote:
I don't have the interest to do the calculations. But I suspect that the "exponential growth" would be insignificant as compared to anything else one would reasonably consider to be growing exponentially.

Mikey wrote:

88 wrote:
I don't have the interest to do the calculations. But I suspect that the "exponential growth" would be insignificant as compared to anything else one would reasonably consider to be growing exponentially.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

Diogenes wrote:

Mikey wrote:

88 wrote:
I don't have the interest to do the calculations. But I suspect that the "exponential growth" would be insignificant as compared to anything else one would reasonably consider to be growing exponentially.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.

Katy wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Mikey wrote:
Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.

mvscum? What the fuck are you? 9?

Katy wrote:I don't care about what you're talking about. I just saw an opportunity to pound your head in some shit and took it.

Diogenes wrote:

Katy wrote:I don't care about what you're talking about. I just saw an opportunity to pound your head in some shit and took it.

And how's that working out for you?

I know I'm impressed.

Diogenes wrote:

Katy wrote:I don't care about what you're talking about. I just saw an opportunity to pound your head in some shit and took it.

And how's that working out for you?

I know I'm impressed.

Katy wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Katy wrote:I don't care about what you're talking about. I just saw an opportunity to pound your head in some shit and took it.

And how's that working out for you?

I know I'm impressed.

Extremely well. How are 90% of your posts working out for you?

Diogenes wrote:

Mikey wrote:

88 wrote:
I don't have the interest to do the calculations. But I suspect that the "exponential growth" would be insignificant as compared to anything else one would reasonably consider to be growing exponentially.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.

Mikey wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Mikey wrote:Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.

Going down this road with you would definitely be a waste of time and bandwidth.

The graph of y = ex is upward-sloping, and increases faster as x increases.

Mikey wrote:The I guess "most people" have no idea what an exponential function implies. I really hate to lump Dinsdale in with "most people"...but there you have it.

With an exponent of 1.035, assuming that value is maintained, you'll have a doubling of the original value in 20 years. in 100 years the value has increased by a factor of 31.2. Not exactly trivial.

Diogenes wrote:Actually correct. Sorry to lump you in with mvscum. But this...



...Is not an exponential curve. Closer to linear.

Mikey wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Actually correct. Sorry to lump you in with mvscum. But this...



...Is not an exponential curve. Closer to linear.

Wrong again.

Sirfindafold wrote:Mikey sounding off like his hero - Al Gore:

Felix wrote:

Sirfindafold wrote:Mikey sounding off like his hero - Al Gore:

Al Gore is not a scientist and has no scientific background...but then again neither do the climate change deniers you're listening to....

Diogenes wrote: [
Wrong again.

Diogenes wrote:

Mikey wrote:

88 wrote:
I don't have the interest to do the calculations. But I suspect that the "exponential growth" would be insignificant as compared to anything else one would reasonably consider to be growing exponentially.

Not sure what you mean by that.

If you raise something to the nth power, even if it's a very small fraction over 1, when n starts getting large your result is gonna blow up.

You need to take a remedial math course.

Bring along mvscum.

Papa Willie wrote:

Felix wrote:

Sirfindafold wrote:Mikey sounding off like his hero - Al Gore:

Al Gore is not a scientist and has no scientific background...but then again neither do the climate change deniers you're listening to....

SYHTFOTW

But Al Gore has become (probably by now) a fucking billionaire off of this shit. THAT is the problem.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Absolute bullshit, and of course you've got nothing upon which to base this whole silly attack.

Felix wrote:...holding a PHD in physics doesn't make anyone as expert in climate science

...is not a scientist and has no scientific background...but then again neither do the climate change deniers you're listening to....

Diogenes wrote:
But getting paid to channel Chicken Little does.

Besides, what you said was...
...is not a scientist and has no scientific background...but then again neither do the climate change deniers you're listening to....

88 wrote: Just 18,000 years ago, ice was at least 100 feet thick where my casa now stands.

88 wrote:

Felix wrote:my problem has always been with the uninformed jackasses that insist there is no global warming, although the FACT of a warming earth is accepted by about 98% of all climate scientists

You are mixing apples and oranges. Although it is very irresponsible to declare as FACT that the Earth is warming in view of the complexity of the measurement and the paucity of reliable historical data, I'll grant you that most people agree that the Earth has warmed in recent years. But there is real and genuine disagreement over the cause of that warming. Is it natural or driven by some other force?

Your 98% figure may have, at one time, represented the number of "climate scientists" that believed that human generated CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere was driving global warming. I doubt that number is accurate today. But even if that number is accurate, it means absolutely nothing. Don't you figure that 98% or more of all "scientists" believed the Earth was flat when Aristotle tossed out his radical "sphere" theory? Consensus is compelling only to dolts who grant proxies to others to do their thinking for them. Scientists demand proof, and that is where the human generated CO2 explanation for global warming fails miserably. The measurable data collected each year demonstrates that the climate models and theories are not accurate. And other explanations for the recent warming appear to fit much better (unfortunately for those politically minded persons who desire to use "climate change" as an excuse and means to obtain power, these new explanations do not justify imposing Draconian regulations on man).

At this point in time, no honest scientist can say with any certainty what exactly is causing global warming, if in FACT global warming is occurring right now. What we do know to be a FACT is that the Earth's climate has a history of changing dramatically without any input from man. Just 18,000 years ago, ice was at least 100 feet thick where my casa now stands.



All of that ice melted away in a relatively short period of time without any industrial emissions. Furthermore, we know that both the "Medieval Warm Period" and the "Little Ice Age" occurred in the past 1000 years, again without any significant human help.

Unless and until there is scientific proof that human CO2 emissions are, in FACT:

(1) driving a change in our climate;
(2) that the change in the climate is significant in terms of the future health of man and the other species that inhabit the Earth; and
(3) that such changes can be effectively remediated by altering our current way of life

it is wrong to implement policies that require man to make those changes.

War Wagon wrote:Or, just someone who likes to play devils advocate.

Moving Sale wrote:2) Oil and coal suck. Stop using them.

Moving Sale wrote:1) A conspiracy involving thousands of people and nobody rats? The hell you say.
2) Oil and coal suck. Stop using them. End of discussion.

OCmike wrote:
The entire scare has been based on computer models that are now proven to be dead wrong. In fact those models not only didn't predict the decade-long cooling phase, but their supporters have no explanation for it.

What this past decade proves is that a hell of a lot more study is needed (like a century) before a single dime is spent in the name of Global Warming "science".

Dinsdale wrote:Educate yourselves.

Felix wrote:

OCmike wrote:
The entire scare has been based on computer models that are now proven to be dead wrong. In fact those models not only didn't predict the decade-long cooling phase, but their supporters have no explanation for it.

What this past decade proves is that a hell of a lot more study is needed (like a century) before a single dime is spent in the name of Global Warming "science".

who's ass did you pull this shit from

here are the scientific facts, CO2 levels (and methane levels) in our atmosphere are rising...the sun emits short wave radiation, which when bounced off the earth is reflected as long wave radiation....CO2 and methane absorb long wave radiation which causes the atoms to vibrate, vibration causes heat which in turn raises the temperature....when the temperature increases, more CO2 and methane gasses are released into the air due to in large part to the increased ice melt, which in turn releases more CO2 and methane into the air...rinse and repeat.....

these aren't theories, they're well established scientific facts....

Physics 101