Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: so i was thinkan.jpg (8KB, 270x203px) Image search:
[Google]
8KB, 270x203px
ok guys so I'm not a science guy or a mathfag but a buddy of mine at work got me thinking the other day on this whole global warming thing. me being a skeptic and a troll, the whole thing sounds more like religion to me than science. now then, if television has taught me anything, its that good science can always be proven with math. if not for math how else could the moon landing have been faked so well? anyway so this morning I set out to disprove by means of some numbers collected from google, a carbon footprint calculator from the entarwebs and a cursory knowledge of Microsoft Calculator 6.1 usage. as is practice in global warming claims, my evidence is at best anecdotal and I will be rounding numbers a bit for simplification, also I couldn't be bothered to get data down to the 5th decimal place. So in summation the following shall be my evidence that climate change is bullshit. if you find some manner of glaring error, please feel free to submit your own calculation in the same simple math format for us laymen to understand.
lets start with atmospheric pressure, which google reports as 14.7psi sea level. as I understand, this should mean a column of air, the thickness of the atmosphere weighs 14.7lbs on 1 sq inch at the bottom of it. there are 144 sq inches per sq foot and 27878400 sq feet per sq mile as also reported by google.
14.7 x 144 x 27878400 = 59012997120 lbs/sqmi
or 29,506,498.56 tons per sqmi
google says the surface of the earth is 196.9 million square miles, I could not be bothered to measure it myself.
29506498.56 x 196900000 = 5,809,829,566,464,000 tons weight of earth's atmosphere
footprint calculator has my truck at about 8.7 tons/year, my heating bill at about the same, I do enjoy a bit of light and sound so I'll round out my overall footprint at about 30 tons/year. hell, lets go 50 because murica fuck year~! lets just use this bullshit number of 50 tons per person for the population of the USA of 321M
50 x 321000000 = 16,050,000,000
>>
ermahgurd thats sixteen billion tons~! sounds like a lot of emmissions right? lets do one more calculation to get perspective.
16050000000 / 5809829566464000 = 2.7625595237156690769947328861582e-6
woweewowow thats a big sciencey number! but what does it all mean? well if i'm understanding the whole scientifical notary stuff right that should be something like
0.00000276255 and a bunch more numbers that dont really matter because what i'm looking for is a percentage of emmissions versus total atmosphere.
0.000276%
if the entire population of the USA just up and disapeared, all power plants offline and not a single car running, emmissions would be cut by a whole less than 3 tenthousanths of a percent of the earth's atmosphere which is supposed to affect temperatures by half a degree centigrade or something. anyway bullshit.
>>
op here, so did I miss something here or is my math completely outside the realm of reality? please /sci/ tell me, I want to understand, is this one of the reasons global warming isn't spread by means of math but only dubious charts and suspect infographics?
>>
>>8956746
Here's my proof that alcohol getting you drunk is bullshit:
According to http://www.businessinsider.com/drinks-before-driving-if-bac-is-05-2013-5
3 ounces of 80 proof liquor is enough to make a 100 pound person drunk. This translates to 0.075 pounds of alcohol. But that's only 0.00075 of the person's body. Obviously such a small amount can't make you drunk. Therbefore alcohol doors not cause intoxication.
>>
>lbs
>inch
>sq mile
>>
File: my dick by donald j trump.jpg (42KB, 839x545px) Image search:
[Google]
42KB, 839x545px
>>8956769
>>
so if the co2 content of the atmosphere is 0.04%, by my math, that's 2,323,931,826,585.6 tons, making the impact of 'murica still less than 7 thousanths of a percent of what is normally present
>>
>>8956742
>its that good science can always be proven with math
False. Good science relies on rigorous analysis, exact reporting, reproductivity and peer review. It is a common missconsumption that mathematics plays any major role in scientific work. What you mean is probably mathematical modeling of physical phenomena, which again, is inherently flawed.
>>
>>8956811
finally some quality feedback, thank you!
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2