smiradenius Posted yesterday at 02:30 AM Share Posted yesterday at 02:30 AM (edited) When you divide forty one billion, six hundred million by five quadrillion, one hundred forty trillion... You get the the total man made carbon dioxide contribution annually as a percentage of the naturally occurring gasses in the global atmosphere. Edited yesterday at 03:14 AM by smiradenius Change title Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mthor Posted yesterday at 02:40 AM Share Posted yesterday at 02:40 AM It's not only math, it's wrong. You just flunked percentages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted yesterday at 02:51 AM Author Share Posted yesterday at 02:51 AM 9 minutes ago, mthor said: It's not only math, it's wrong. You just flunked percentages. Try it on easier terms. 25÷100=.25 .25 = 25% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insipid Posted yesterday at 02:58 AM Share Posted yesterday at 02:58 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mthor Posted yesterday at 02:59 AM Share Posted yesterday at 02:59 AM 28 minutes ago, smiradenius said: When you divide five quadrillion, one hundred forty trillion by forty one billion, six hundred million... You get our total carbon dioxide contribution as a percentage of the naturally occurring gasses in the global atmosphere. Look at it. You're backwards. You fail. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted yesterday at 03:02 AM Author Share Posted yesterday at 03:02 AM 2 minutes ago, mthor said: Look at it. You're backwards. You fail. You know what? You're right. Going up there to invert that, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insipid Posted yesterday at 03:16 AM Share Posted yesterday at 03:16 AM I have been reminded of an old thread of yours where I taught you how coal could produce more in emissions than its weight. And now you the have the gall to talk about percentages and the atmosphere. But saying quadrillion must make you think you're so smart. 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted yesterday at 03:16 AM Author Share Posted yesterday at 03:16 AM 17 minutes ago, Insipid said: Nothing like cooking with gas, man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted yesterday at 03:17 AM Author Share Posted yesterday at 03:17 AM (edited) 5 minutes ago, Insipid said: I have been reminded of an old thread of yours where I taught you how coal could produce more in emissions than its weight. And now you the have the gall to talk about percentages and the atmosphere. But saying quadrillion must make you think you're so smart. 🙄 It still doesn't change the figures mentioned in the op here. You’re still scooping a teaspoon of instant coffee into Lake Superior and expecting the world's biggest cup of coffee. Edited yesterday at 03:23 AM by smiradenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insipid Posted yesterday at 03:40 AM Share Posted yesterday at 03:40 AM 22 minutes ago, smiradenius said: It still doesn't change the figures mentioned in the op here. You’re still scooping a teaspoon of instant coffee into Lake Superior and expecting the world's biggest cup of coffee. Your math is wrong. I used your numbers in your OP. Now shut the fuck up and stay shut the fuck up: 41,600,000,000 ÷ 5,140,000,000,000,000 = 0.0000081 or approximately 8.1 × 10⁻⁶. 0.0000081 × 100 = 0.00081%. The volume of Lake Superior is approximately 2,900,000,000,000,000 liters (2.9 quadrillion liters). One teaspoon is about 5 milliliters, which is 0.005 liters. 0.005 liters ÷ 2,900,000,000,000,000 x 100 = 0.00000000000017% So, one teaspoon of Lake Superior is approximately 0.00000000000017% of the lake's total volume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted yesterday at 04:38 AM Author Share Posted yesterday at 04:38 AM (edited) 58 minutes ago, Insipid said: Your math is wrong. I used your numbers in your OP. Now shut the fuck up and stay shut the fuck up: 41,600,000,000 ÷ 5,140,000,000,000,000 = 0.0000081 or approximately 8.1 × 10⁻⁶. 0.0000081 × 100 = 0.00081%. The volume of Lake Superior is approximately 2,900,000,000,000,000 liters (2.9 quadrillion liters). One teaspoon is about 5 milliliters, which is 0.005 liters. 0.005 liters ÷ 2,900,000,000,000,000 x 100 = 0.00000000000017% So, one teaspoon of Lake Superior is approximately 0.00000000000017% of the lake's total volume. Let's put this in easier terms because big numbers apparently confuse you. 50 ÷ 200 = 0.25 The 0.25 = 25% of the 200. There's nothing to multiply. As for the lake, you just don't get sarcasm. But let's use your figures. Tell me again how 0.0008% is making any difference. Edited yesterday at 04:41 AM by smiradenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insipid Posted yesterday at 04:46 AM Share Posted yesterday at 04:46 AM (edited) 8 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Let's put this in easier terms because big numbers apparently confuse you. 50 ÷ 200 = 0.25 The 0.25 = 25% of the 200. There's nothing to multiply. Human carbon emissions do register as parts per million in the atmosphere. One teaspoon of Lake Superior does not register as one part per billion. You really are making yourself look exceptionally stupid right now, and I am perfectly content making that hole deeper for you. Edited yesterday at 04:47 AM by Insipid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insipid Posted yesterday at 04:58 AM Share Posted yesterday at 04:58 AM lol, you added more. I'm done. THIS IS WHY FACT CHECKING IS IMPORTANT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André Toulon Posted yesterday at 06:27 AM Share Posted yesterday at 06:27 AM (edited) Lol, she edited it to "change the title" What a sad, pathetic sack of shit...can't leave these receipts laying around. Edited yesterday at 02:07 PM by André Toulon Machine failed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted yesterday at 12:49 PM Author Share Posted yesterday at 12:49 PM 8 hours ago, Insipid said: Human carbon emissions do register as parts per million in the atmosphere. One teaspoon of Lake Superior does not register as one part per billion. You really are making yourself look exceptionally stupid right now, and I am perfectly content making that hole deeper for you. Okay, so does dumping a hundred thousand cubic yards of instant coffee there get you the coffee I'm pointing at? You STILL don't get the sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discolé monade Posted yesterday at 01:28 PM Share Posted yesterday at 01:28 PM lol lol lol lol she is SUCH A LOSER!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insipid Posted yesterday at 03:03 PM Share Posted yesterday at 03:03 PM 2 hours ago, smiradenius said: You STILL don't get the sarcasm. It wasn't sarcasm. You seriously thought it was the same ratio at first until you got fact checked. That's why your side hates fact checking. Always the same play book, "I wasn't serious bro," but libtards have to be on point all the time. Get fucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted yesterday at 06:50 PM Author Share Posted yesterday at 06:50 PM 3 hours ago, Insipid said: It wasn't sarcasm. You seriously thought it was the same ratio at first until you got fact checked. That's why your side hates fact checking. Always the same play book, "I wasn't serious bro," but libtards have to be on point all the time. Get fucked. Okay, so would a hundred thousand cubic yards of the powder in the lake make the coffee I'm pointing at? It's STILL a proportion issue, regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insipid Posted yesterday at 06:50 PM Share Posted yesterday at 06:50 PM Just now, smiradenius said: Okay, so would a hundred thousand cubic yards of the powder in the lake make the coffee I'm pointing at? It's STILL a proportion issue, regardless. You have to answer my question about Elon Musk first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted yesterday at 06:54 PM Author Share Posted yesterday at 06:54 PM (edited) 8 minutes ago, Insipid said: You have to answer my question about Elon Musk first. Puh... We've already finished the last four years of a kleptocrat in the White House and you STILL don't know where Elon stands? Am I talking to an Ai chat bot or something? Anyway, I can still plainly say that the answer to my own question is a resounding no. Edited yesterday at 07:00 PM by smiradenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insipid Posted yesterday at 07:01 PM Share Posted yesterday at 07:01 PM 7 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Puh... We've already finished the last four years of a kleptocrat in the White House and you STILL don't know where Elon stands? Am I talking to an Ai chat bot or something? Insufficient answer. This discussion is over. You have been proven wrong, all with the work laid out before your eyes. Have a pleasant day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted yesterday at 07:06 PM Author Share Posted yesterday at 07:06 PM 1 minute ago, Insipid said: Insufficient answer. This discussion is over. You have been proven wrong, all with the work laid out before your eyes. Have a pleasant day How is any of it wrong? I'm still talking about proportions that will never under any circumstances make a significant difference, whether carbon in the atmosphere or coffee in a lake and none of your lame "fact checking" (nit picking) will ever change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insipid Posted yesterday at 07:51 PM Share Posted yesterday at 07:51 PM 31 minutes ago, smiradenius said: How is any of it wrong? I'm still talking about proportions that will never under any circumstances make a significant difference, whether carbon in the atmosphere or coffee in a lake and none of your lame "fact checking" (nit picking) will ever change that. Nitpicking? You have no idea what significant figures and logarithms are, but you want to disprove climate change with your failure to grasp proportions with basic arithmetic. Referring to my previous calculations, it's the same difference in scale from a magnitude 1.0 earthquake and a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. A magnitude 1.0 earthquake cannot be felt by humans. A magnitude 9.0 earthquake caused the 2011 Tohoku tsunami. Does this still sound like nitpicking to you? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted yesterday at 08:24 PM Share Posted yesterday at 08:24 PM Trump made billions off his meme cryptocurrency overnight. Directly cashing in on his office, but Biden is the kleptocrat? lol fuckin Crazy Town Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted yesterday at 08:38 PM Author Share Posted yesterday at 08:38 PM 13 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said: Trump made billions off his meme cryptocurrency overnight. Directly cashing in on his office, but Biden is the kleptocrat? lol fuckin Crazy Town Did anybody who bought that crypto do so under any duress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.