The global energy crisis - Green fairy tales collide with reality

[Moviefan-2]

One other important thing to note.

The range for the projected temperature increase -- a range of 1C to 5C by the year 2100 -- came from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which provides the sea surface temperatures to NASA for its calculations of temperature increases.

Thus, if Frankfooter tries to argue these projections aren't credible, we will have him on record saying NOAA and NASA's temperature projections aren't credible.

 

[Frankfooter]

Any temperature percentages has to be on absolute temperatures to make any sense.

Of course, but first we have to correct his reading of his own sources.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Results from a wide range of climate model simulations suggest that our planet’s average temperature could be between 2 and 9.7°F (1.1 to 5.4°C) warmer in 2100 than it is today."

Right, so the numbers should be 1.1ºC to 5.4ºC, not 1-5ºC.
First error.

Next, we tackle danmand's point.
What is the absolute temperature of the planet right now?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Right, so the numbers should be 1.1ºC to 5.4ºC, not 1-5ºC.
First error.

Nice try, Franky.

My original quote was an approximation using the numbers from both sources. But I'm fine using the specific numbers in the NOAA link. Let's go with a projected range from 1.1C to 5.4C.

Frankfooter, do you remember this quote?: "Wow, 400% eh?"

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/the-global-energy-crisis-green-fairy-tales-collide-with-reality.762812/page-13#post-7329723

NOAA's projected range by 2100 is a 391% increase from the low end to the high end.

Percentage Increase Calculator

Percentage increase calculator finds the increase from one value to another as a percentage of the first value. Shows you how to find percentage increase with percent increase formula.

www.calculatorsoup.com

If that's the percentage increase you want to stick with, that's absolutely fine with me. My original point remains the exact same.



(In the spirit of the season, let me give you a helpful hint, Frankfooter. You can lose the snarky tone because you're not fooling anyone. You're not going to save face by reducing the astronomical range from 400 percentage points to 391 percentage points.)

 

[danmand]

I apologize for not having read all your posts. However:

A 1.1 C increase is a 0.7% increase in temperature

A 5.4 C increase is a 1.9% increase in temperature

 

[Moviefan-2]

I apologize for not having read all your posts. However:

A 1.1 C increase is a 0.7% increase in temperature

A 5.4 C increase is a 1.9% increase in temperature

Understood. My point in post 252 was the number at the top of the range was 400 percentage points higher than the number at the bottom of the range (I was using 1C and 5C as rounded estimates from two sources).

I wasn't commenting on the size of the projected increase.

Rather, my point was about the magnitude of the range of projections. It is so enormous relative to the temperature increase from the 19th century to now that it pretty much guarantees the actual temperature increases in the years ahead will be captured in the projections.

I would add my point remains the exact same if we go with a 391 percentage point difference.

In effect, the range is so enormous as to render the projections meaningless. They can't be used to draw any scientific conclusions.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Wow, 400% eh?
Why didn't you say 40000%?

Perhaps you'd like to show us your math for these numbers.

For whatever reason, Frankfooter was shocked by the "400" number and questioned my math, even though he now wants us to believe he knew the difference in NOAA's range was 391 percentage points.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nice try, Franky.

My original quote was an approximation using the numbers from both sources. But I'm fine using the specific numbers in the NOAA link. Let's go with a projected range from 1.1C to 5.4C.

Frankfooter, do you remember this quote?: "Wow, 400% eh?"

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/the-global-energy-crisis-green-fairy-tales-collide-with-reality.762812/page-13#post-7329723

NOAA's projected increase by 2100 is a 391% increase.

Percentage Increase Calculator

Percentage increase calculator finds the increase from one value to another as a percentage of the first value. Shows you how to find percentage increase with percent increase formula.

www.calculatorsoup.com

If that's the percentage increase you want to stick with, that's absolutely fine with me. My original point remains the exact same.



(In the spirit of the season, let me give you a helpful hint, Frankfooter. You can lose the snarky tone because you're not fooling anyone. You're not going to save face by reducing the astronomical range from 400 percentage points to 391 percentage points.)

Your math is as good as your science, moviefan.

If you had $16 and then someone said they'd give you between $1 and $4 more, would you say that you're getting a 400% increase?
Well, yes, you would.
Because you did.

The actual absolute temp of the planet is in the 16ºC range, depending on whose measurements you're going with.
So to say that when scientists say there will be a 1-4ºC increase that means there will be a 400% increase is just totally, incredibly wrong.

Understood. My point in post 252 was the number at the top of the range was 400 percentage points higher than the number at the bottom of the range (I was using 1C and 5C as rounded estimates from two sources).

That's not what you said.

Given that the "range" for the projections is over 400 percentage points, I'm sure their "confidence levels" are extremely high.

A range of over 400% warming would have been up to approximately 64ºC warming, given an approximate base temperature of 16ºC.

Your math is as bad as your science.
No matter how you spin it, a 1-4ºC increase is not a range of 400%.

 

[danmand]

Understood. My point in post 252 was the number at the top of the range was 400 percentage points higher than the number at the bottom of the range (I was using 1C and 5C as rounded estimates from two sources)

But it is misleading, if the low range is 0.7% and the high range is 1.9%.increase.

PS: I know you did not intend to mislead.

 

[Frankfooter]

But it is misleading, if the low range is 0.7% and the high range is 1.9%.increase.

Its not misleading, its just bad math.
To claim its a 400% increase moviefan would have to argue that there is going to be 1ºC warming and now scientists are projecting a 400% increase in warming to 4ºC.

You can't just say warming in a range of 1-4ºC is an increase in the range of 400%, its just bad math.

Just saw this, which also highlights the same kind of logic moviefan used for his post.

 

[y2kmark]

Either way she has always been as stunned as me arse.

Interesting turn of phrase. Know anything about the origin? Always looking for concise but colorful terminology..

 

[Moviefan-2]

But it is misleading, if the low range is 0.7% and the high range is 1.9%.increase.

PS: I know you did not intend to mislead.

The point certainly wasn't to mislead.

My point is that it's a phenomenal range, given that the Earth's temperature reportedly increased by about 1C since the late 19th century. I wasn't looking at the difference between the two rates of increase but rather the enormous difference between the two end points.

I do agree in hindsight that I shouldn't have used the word "increase" in post 250, as that could be confusing. But I would say that I had explained my calculation in prior posts and described exactly how I got the 400% number.

I would also say in my own defence that I didn't think I would have to teach Frankfooter that the number 5 is 400% greater than the number 1.

Simply put, the range is so enormous that the temperature in the years to come is almost certain to fall somewhere within the range - which makes the projections meaningless.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Its not misleading, its just bad math.
To claim its a 400% increase moviefan would have to argue that there is going to be 1ºC warming and now scientists are projecting a 400% increase in warming to 4ºC.

This thread is further proof that Frankfooter is both illiterate and innumerate. Let's review.

Referring to the projected range of temperature possibilities by the year 2100, I said: "Given that the "range" for the projections is over 400 percentage points, I'm sure their "confidence levels" are extremely high."

When asked to provide my sources, I provided two links and said: "The range by the year 2100 is from about 1C to 5C." I also said the range "was approx. 1C to 5C by the year 2100."

Frankfooter's illiteracy:

- Using the NOAA numbers of 1.1ºC to 5.4ºC by the year 2100, Frankfooter said my range of "about"/"approx." 1C to 5C was "my first error" (post 263). It wasn't an error. Frankfooter clearly doesn't know the meaning of the words "about" and "approx." (an abbreviation for "approximately").

Frankfooter's innumeracy:

- When I posted that the range in the approximate 2100 temperatures from 1C to 5C is a difference of 400 percentage points, Frankfooter called it "comedy gold" (post 256) and asked whether I stand by my research. Frankfooter clearly doesn't know that 5 is 400% greater than 1.

Frankfooter's level of education has always been a mystery but I remain confident he never completed high school.

When examining this post and his posting history, I'm not certain he even started high school. A strong case can be argued that he never made it as far as Grade 9.

 

[Frankfooter]

Referring to the projected range of temperature possibilities by the year 2100, I said: "Given that the "range" for the projections is over 400 percentage points, I'm sure their "confidence levels" are extremely high."

Frankfooter clearly doesn't know that 5 is 400% greater than 1.

The base temperature of the earth is around 16ºC, a 'range of over 400%' would have been around 64ºC in warming.
Claiming that a range of warming of 1-4º is a 400% range is bad math.
I love the fact that you are doubling down on your error and now trying to just lob insults rather than admit you made a really basic error.

That's really the calling card of the Trump, science deniers. I'm sure the flat earther's and anti-vaxxers who share your science denier mantra would do the same thing.

You're doing really well in this thread, you already admitted there is no evidence you would accept that could change your faith like beliefs, used 4/5 science denier tactics including accusing me of not citing scientists while only citing right wing commentators yourself, were called out for lying and now are doubling down on a really basic math error.

Today we should be celebrating NASA's launch of the Webb telescope, except that science deniers like you would never celebrate the work of the same people you accuse of being in some kind of global conspiracy about climate change.

Keep it up, its almost as entertaining as your claim that 2015 would never hit 0.83ºC and even when it did, you tried to claim it didn't happen.
And yet here you are years later admitting the world has already passed that by and hit 1ºC.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Claiming that a range of warming of 1-4º is a 400% range is bad math.

Further proof that Frankfooter is illiterate and innumerate.

I never said anything about a "range of warming." I said the range between the two 2100 projections is a difference of 400 percentage points.

Only Frankfooter thinks it is "bad math" to say that 1 x 4 = 4 and that 1 + 4 = 5.

 

[Frankfooter]

Further proof that Frankfooter is illiterate and innumerate.

I never said anything about a "range of warming." I said the range between the two 2100 projections is a difference of 400 percentage points.

Only Frankfooter thinks it is "bad math" to say that 4 x 1 = 4 and that 1 + 4 = 5.

Still doubling down on your error?
As danmand stated:

A 1.1 C increase is a 0.7% increase in temperature

A 5.4 C increase is a 1.9% increase in temperature

danmand came up with a range of 0.7% - 1.9% increase.
Though I think the real numbers are 7% to 34%, given a rough base of 16ºC for the planet.
(1.1/16 and 5.4/16 which gives you 6.85% and 33.75%)
Not 400%.

Your error is clear when one just asks 'percentage of what', to your 400% claim.
400% of 1ºC?
Is that the range you were talking about?
The real range of warming should have been (1-4)/16, not just (1-4).

And as a confirmed science denier its expected that you would never accept math that doesn't fit your faith as well.
Carry on.

 

[danmand]

Still doubling down on your error?
As danmand stated:

danmand came up with a range of 0.7% - 1.9% increase.
Though I think the real numbers are 7% to 34%, given a rough base of 16ºC for the planet.
(1.1/16 and 5.4/16 which gives you 6.85% and 33.75%)
Not 400%.

Your error is clear when one just asks 'percentage of what', to your 400% claim.
400% of 1ºC?
Is that the range you were talking about?
The real range of warming should have been (1-4)/16, not just (1-4).

And as a confirmed science denier its expected that you would never accept math that doesn't fit your faith as well.
Carry on.

you are both wrong when it comes to temperature.

Taking an arbitrary number as the basis for the calculation of % increase is not useful. (1 and 16 are both arbitrary)

You have to use the absolute temperature, i.e the absolute 0 as basis for the calculation. The average temperature of the earth's surface is 288 degrees.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your error is clear when one just asks 'percentage of what', to your 400% claim.
400% of 1ºC?

Unlike danmand, I had already explicitly provided you with the basis of the 400% calculation (it's a fact, not a "claim"). I explicitly said we were talking about the range from 1 to 5 being a difference of 400 percentage points.

The 400 percentage-point difference means the top number in the range is four times greater than the starting number. In this case, it means multiplying 1 x 4.

I say 1 x 4 = 4. Adding that number to the starting number of 1, you get 1 + 4 = 5.

Since you say I'm wrong, please provide your answers to the following equations:

1 x 4 = ?
1 + (the answer from the first calculation) = ?

I can't wait to see your responses.

 

[Moviefan-2]

you are both wrong when it comes to temperature.

Taking an arbitrary number as the basis for the calculation of % increase is not useful. (1 and 16 are both arbitrary)

You have to use the absolute temperature, i.e the absolute 0 as basis for the calculation. The average temperature of the earth's surface is 288 degrees.

The problem is the climate researchers all use temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. Subsequently, the IPCC also uses temperature anomalies (the last time I looked, they compared their projections with the temperature data from the University of East Anglia and the Met Office in the U.K.).

NASA, NOAA, etc., also use temperature anomalies.

I actually agree with your point but the situation is what it is.

 

[Frankfooter]

you are both wrong when it comes to temperature.

Taking an arbitrary number as the basis for the calculation of % increase is not useful. (1 and 16 are both arbitrary)

You have to use the absolute temperature, i.e the absolute 0 as basis for the calculation. The average temperature of the earth's surface is 288 degrees.

That's another approach, totally acceptable as well, using the temp above absolute zero.
Probably more accurate than mine, using the temp above freezing, but I think my answer would also be fine.
The only one I think that has no merit is of course moviefans.

Another approach that might actually be the most useful would be calculating it in IAU, or Ice Age Units, which are 4.5ºC.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455351412930584576