Global warming is real

[dantes]

If you read it, you’d see that it directly contradicts your earlier statement which promoted this discussion.

@WildRose

At least five over only the last 2 million years.

Nope. There’s been one ice age over the last 2.5 million years and your link proves it.

Not 5.

[WildRose]

The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth.

Again from the first paragraph.

[dantes]

An object 230 meters by 50 meters isn’t going to kill most of the life on the planet. We are struck by similar size objects about every 100,000 years. Most of the life on the planet doesn’t die every 100,000 years.

You don’t have to say everything they pops into your head. You could at least do a little research before making your claims.

[dantes]

The most recent ice age occurred from 2.5 million years to 11k years ago.

You claimed there were 5 ice ages in this timeframe.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@Call_me_Ishmael

That’s not relative change. The word “relative” in this case does in fact mean you are calculating the percentage change in the percentage tax rate. You might not like that but that’s the way it works.

Except I never said “relative change” and with regards to the old thread I was always talking about change in terms of the tax rate which is percent of income. Move along…

You can even make the calculation using the actual tax instead of tax rate…just multiply the numerator and denominator by income. I’ll repeat my post below but make that very change.

I only took a quick glance at this discussion.

Relative change =
[(Final tax- initial tax)/(initial tax)]x 100

[(12% x income -15% x income)/(15% x income) ]x100 = (-3% x income/15% x income)x100 =(-0.2)x100 = -20…or a 20% decrease

@ImRightYoureWrong, you should check out one of the “numbers are fun” or “arithmetic and you” websites for more amazing things you can do with numbers.

https://www.easycalculation.com/formulas/relative-change.html

Looks like Samm is correct.

There. You want to fight on this hill ?

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Call_me_Ishmael

You can even make the calculation using the actual tax instead of tax rate…just multiply the numerator and denominator by income. I’ll repeat my post below but make that very change.

Lol. If you make $100 and pay $2 in taxes, that’s 2% of income. If you pay $1 in taxes now that’s 1% of income. That means the taxes you pay has changed by $1, or 1% of income. Percent…of…income.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

No one who knows basic analysis agrees with your use of numbers. If you ever get job, they will fire you if you employ such ignorance.

But carry on

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Call_me_Ishmael

No one who knows basic analysis agrees with your use of numbers. If you ever get job, they will fire you if you employ such ignorance.

But carry on

25% of X minus 22% of X is a difference of 3% of X. No matter how much you want to spin it. You keep changing the units.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

www.jobhat.com

just in case…

[dantes]

Its a perfectly valid way of describing it. Done all the time in analysis. In this instance, it’s more relevant.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Call_me_Ishmael

just in case…

Since you cant argue the math anymore, you lose.

[Samm]

@WildRose

I watched it off and on for years and never really “got it”.

That’s because, as Jerry described it, the show was about nothing. That you did not get it means you got it.

[Samm]

@dantes

Could they? Only if there is a non random distribution otherwise their effects would cancel out. Extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely.

Over billions of years, almost anything is likely. Ever been to the Grand Canyon? As I said, your thinking is stuck on a human life span.

[dantes]

Over billions of years, the likelihood of a non-random distribution goes down.

[Samm]

@dantes

Yes. The moon has a profound effect because it is big, close and always there.

NEOs are not big, close and always there. If they’re on long orbital periods, it means they would spend next to no time close enough for their gravity to exert enough force to have any significant effect. We would know if there were big NEOs.

Not if they were on a extremely long orbit or a one-time fly by. We are just now learning about significant masses in the outermost reagion of the solar system and have yet to determine their orbits.

You still haven’t responded to the question I have asked you twice … what do you think initiated the age of ice ages some two million years ago?

[Samm]

@dantes

Throwing spaghetti at the wall just to introduce doubt.

Criticism is fine. It’s good. This is not how criticism is done.

This is a discussion board … we are discussing.

And I have yet to see anything from you that constitutes anything other than a critical opinion. The best you have offered is ‘I don’t believe it, so you must be wrong.’

[dantes]

If they only come around rarely, then it’s even less likely that they’ll cause any change in our orbit.

Don’t know exactly what initiated the last ice ages. Previous ice ages were likely precipitated by plate techtonics. Perhaps the joining of north and South America changed ocean currents enough. Also the fact that there’s twice as much land mass in the north might have something to do with it. Ecology could have an effect too but it’s hard to say there was any substantial evolutionary changes unlike when Cyanobacteria evolves and precipitated the Huronian ice age.

[Samm]

@Oryx

@Samm

The last episode was perhaps the most hyped and most disappointing of the entire series. And it’s not like Seinfeld was the only person to ever use that phrase about boobs.

I enjoyed it. Where else has “that phrase about boobs” been used? If it’s such a common phrase, why didn’t you recognize it?

Because the topic being discussed has nothing to do with boobs.

[dantes]

Your goal would seem to increase uncertainty, not decrease it. I do not find that a worthy goal.

If you think that’s all my posts are, I suggest you read them again.

[Samm]

@dantes

If there was anything of significant size out there, we’d know about it by now.

Again … just in the last few years, objects larger than Pluto have been discovered in the outer solar system … objects with an unknown orbit.