The global energy crisis - Green fairy tales collide with reality

[Frankfooter]

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.

No, your answer is still wrong.
A 400% increase in what?

Just answer that question.

 

[JohnLarue]

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.

So if you believe the surface temp record is untainted (it is incomplete, filled with errors , biased by the urban Island heat effect and has been fiddled with ) and using your average temp of 288 , the warming you are wetting your pants over is is (298-288)/288 = 0.3%

0.03% !!!

The average temperature is a bit of a mystical beast as there is likely a temperature difference of 70 degrees between two places on the planet at all times and most locations temperature will fluctuate 10 to 20C over a 24 hour span
And then there is variability due to elevation differences
Finally temperature record sets prior to the 2oth century did not exist outside of Europe and North America

The surface temperature record is a steaming pile of shit, so your average temperature of 288 degrees is pretty meaningless

if you were to give 10 people the data set and ask each to independently arrive at an average temp you will get numerous values

 

[Moviefan-2]

The only one I think that has no merit is of course moviefans.

This is noteworthy.

Putting aside his preposterous suggestion that the IPCC's projections came from me, Frankfooter now says the temperature anomalies used by NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and others have "no merit."

 

[Moviefan-2]

A 400% increase in what?

Just answer that question.

I did. I say the number 5 is 400% greater than the number 1.

We're still waiting for your answers. Please provide your answers to the following equations:

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

BTW, I'm still curious to know why you said my "approximate" numbers of 1C and 5C for 2100 were "my first error" when NOAA has the numbers as 1.1ºC to 5.4ºC. What do you think the word "approximate" means?

 

[JohnLarue]

I did. I say the number 5 is 400% greater than the number 1.

We're still waiting for your answers. Please provide your answers to the following equations:

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

BTW, I'm still curious to know why you said my "approximate" numbers of 1C and 5C for 2100 were "my first error" when NOAA has the numbers as 1.1ºC to 5.4ºC. What do you think the word "approximate" means?

Is Frankfooter having more trouble with math?

 

[Frankfooter]

I did. I say the number 5 is 400% greater than the number 1.

We're still waiting for your answers. Please provide your answers to the following equations:

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

BTW, I'm still curious to know why you said my "approximate" numbers of 1C and 5C for 2100 were "my first error" when NOAA has the numbers as 1.1ºC to 5.4ºC. What do you think the word "approximate" means?

If you've got $100 salary in your pizza delivery job and you're getting an increase of between $1 and $10, would you say you're getting an increase in the range of 1000%, in the range of 900%, or in a range of 1-10%?

Go ahead, this should be good.

 

[Frankfooter]

So if you believe the surface temp record is untainted (it is incomplete, filled with errors , biased by the urban Island heat effect and has been fiddled with ) and using your average temp of 288 , the warming you are wetting your pants over is is (298-288)/288 = 0.3%

0.03% !!!

Wow, you've outdone moviefan!

298?
Where does the number 298 come from?
The increases are in the 1.1 - 5.4º range, not 10ºC!
Its also impressive that even with your wrong question you came up with both a right and a wrong answer!
Well done!

That's impressive given that danmand already gave the correct numbers if you're basing it off the temp of the planet in Kevlin.

BTW, I love the claim that small number and trace amounts of gas can't have any effects on a body. I bet that's played really well when you tell the OPP that 0.08% is too small to measure or have an effect on a body.

 

[Frankfooter]

This is noteworthy.

Putting aside his preposterous suggestion that the IPCC's projections came from me, Frankfooter now says the temperature anomalies used by NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and others have "no merit."

Your claim that the increase in temperature is in the range of 400% is the one that has no merit, moviefan.
But go ahead and show where NASA, NOAA and the IPCC claim there is a possible increase in global temperature 'in the range of 400%'.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your claim that the increase in temperature is in the range of 400% is the one that has no merit, moviefan.

Here is Frankfooter's original statement about the IPCC's "range" of projections:

"The IPCC projections are always given as a range, with confidence levels and different scenarios based on whether we curtail CO2 output."

Note: There is NOTHING in his statement about the "range" that says anything about an "increase in temperature." Frankfooter was one who set the context for this discussion and he never said anything about an "increase in temperature" being part of the definition of the range. Neither did I.

The so-called "claim" attributed to me in the quote above is a blatant lie.

The outstanding issue continues to be Frankfooter's rather obvious illiteracy and innumeracy. It should be noted he didn't answer the questions in post 286. Let's try another one.

Frankfooter, please solve this equation:

1 x (???)% = 5

He says my answer to that equation is "bad math." So let's see his answer.

--

Two interesting observations:

- Frankfooter still hasn't explained the "error" in my statement that the range in 2100 was "approx." 1C to 5C.
- He once again refuses to tell us whether he ever completed (or even started) high school.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Is Frankfooter having more trouble with math?

Actually, math and basic literacy.

He doesn't appear to know what percentage increase is required to increase the number 1 to the number 5.
He also doesn't know the meaning of the word "approximately."

 

[Moviefan-2]

I'm going to make this simple. On Dec. 24, I made it explicitly clear that I was calculating the percentage difference in the range of temperatures projected for the year 2100. This is the exact quote:

The range by the year 2100 is from about 1C to 5C.

1C x 400% = 4C.

Frankfooter replied that this was "frigging comedy gold" and said I was "incredibly incompetent" with math, science and the climate. https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/the...lide-with-reality.762812/page-13#post-7329818

Since Frankfooter insists the percentage quoted above is wrong, let's see his answer. Frankfooter, please solve the following equation:

1C x (???)% = 4C

 

[jsanchez]

...Since Frankfooter insists the percentage quoted above is wrong, let's see his answer. Frankfooter, please solve the following equation:

1C x (???)% = 4C

My math is rusty but let me try
Since you have a percentage sign in the equation then you're dividing (???) by a 100 so answer should be 400
1% -> 1/100 -> 0.01
10% -> 10/100 -> 0.1
100% -> 100/100 -> 1
400% -> 400/100 -> 4

 

[Frankfooter]

Here is Frankfooter's original statement about the IPCC's "range" of projections:

"The IPCC projections are always given as a range, with confidence levels and different scenarios based on whether we curtail CO2 output."

Note: There is NOTHING in his statement about the "range" that says anything about an "increase in temperature." Frankfooter was one who set the context for this discussion and he never said anything about an "increase in temperature" being part of the definition of the range. Neither did I.

The so-called "claim" attributed to me in the quote above is a blatant lie.

The outstanding issue continues to be Frankfooter's rather obvious illiteracy and innumeracy. It should be noted he didn't answer the questions in post 286. Let's try another one.

Frankfooter, please solve this equation:

1 x (???)% = 5

He says my answer to that equation is "bad math." So let's see his answer.

--

Two interesting observations:

- Frankfooter still hasn't explained the "error" in my statement that the range in 2100 was "approx." 1C to 5C.
- He once again refuses to tell us whether he ever completed (or even started) high school.

Answer the question:
If you've got $100 salary in your pizza delivery job and you're getting an increase of between $1 and $10, would you say you're getting an increase in the range of 1000%, in the range of 900%, or in a range of 1-10%?

Go ahead, this should be good.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm going to make this simple. On Dec. 24, I made it explicitly clear that I was calculating the percentage difference in the range of temperatures projected for the year 2100. This is the exact quote:



Frankfooter replied that this was "frigging comedy gold" and said I was "incredibly incompetent" with math, science and the climate. https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/the...lide-with-reality.762812/page-13#post-7329818

Since Frankfooter insists the percentage quoted above is wrong, let's see his answer. Frankfooter, please solve the following equation:

1C x (???)% = 4C

This isn't about the difference between 1 and 4, moviefan, though I do congratulate you on figuring out that 4 is 4 times more than 1. Its great to see some progress in your thinking.
Its about the difference between a base temperature and an increase.
So answer the question:

If you've got $100 salary in your pizza delivery job and you're getting an increase of between $1 and $10, would you say you're getting an increase in the range of 1000%, in the range of 900%, or in a range of 1-10%?

Go ahead, this should be good.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This isn't about the difference between 1 and 4, moviefan

Agreed. My comment was on the percentage point difference between 1 and 5.

The range by the year 2100 is from about 1C to 5C.

1C x 400% = 4C.

This is frigging comedy gold!
So much failure in one post.

Are you going to stand with this claim or do some research and try again?
It really does show how incredibly incompetent you are with math, science and the climate.

We don't need to use hypothetical examples as we have the actual numbers I cited, along with your allegation that my math was wrong.

Frankfooter, here once again is the percentage point calculator.

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

All you have to do is insert a starting value of 1 and a finishing value of 5 to calculate the percentage point difference between the two numbers. It's that simple.

Let us know what answer you get.

 

[Moviefan-2]

My math is rusty but let me try
Since you have a percentage sign in the equation then you're dividing (???) by a 100 so answer should be 400
1% -> 1/100 -> 0.01
10% -> 10/100 -> 0.1
100% -> 100/100 -> 1
400% -> 400/100 -> 4

Correct.

 

[Frankfooter]

We don't need to use hypothetical examples as we have the actual numbers I cited, along with your allegation that my math was wrong.

Ok, lets use the real example.

The earth's base temperature is either about 16ºC or 288º Kelvin, if you add 1.1º - 5.4º more to that temperature is it increasing the temperature in a range of:
a) 400%
b) 0.7% -1.9%
c) 6.85% - 33.75%

This is a great thread to highlight how science deniers think.
Its a simple mistake, easy to make. And yes, I make mistakes quite often and have in this thread. The difference is that I'm willing to accept and correct when I make mistakes but science deniers never can.
johnlarue would never admit mistakes, phil mcnasty and CM never admit mistakes, just as flat earthers and anti-vaxxers never admit mistakes.

What it does is take them down rabbit holes they can't get out of.
For you, that means you think NASA and all scientists fake climate change for some nefarious conspiracy theory or something, which means that the same people that put a rocket on an comet and just launched the Webb telescope are all corrupt.

When I asked you if there was any proof or evidence that could change your mind you admitted there wasn't.

You can't accept that you are wrong on any point, it would shatter your faith that you are smarter than NASA, me and all climatologists.

So go ahead and pick answer a) even though you know its wrong and it would have been easy to correct that mistake pages ago.

 

[danmand]

Let me try a last time: It is not math, it is physics.

The only real measure of temperature is the absolute temperature, or the temperature in degrees Kelvin.

You can get any percentage increase you want by selecting an arbitrary null for your temperature and your calculation.

If you select -17C as zero, you get one number, if you select 0C you get another number, if you select 16C you get another number.

The only number meaningful in a physics sense as a basis for the calculations is degrees Kelvin.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The only real measure of temperature is the absolute temperature, or the temperature in degrees Kelvin.

While I agree in principle, I will say two things in defence of my posts:

- The decision to measure these things according to the temperature anomalies was made by the climate researchers and the IPCC. I don't necessarily agree with it but am using the numbers as provided.
- The decision to focus on the range of the projections was made by Frankfooter. I had asked for a specific and scientifically measureable prediction.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Are you going to stand with this claim or do some research and try again?

I absolutely stand by it.

Frankfooter: I told you on Dec. 24 that I stand by my numbers as I posted them on Dec. 24.

You don't need to keep posing questions as my position hasn't changed. I still stand by my numbers.

You're the one who challenged my math. The onus is on you to tell us what you think the correct answer is.

Stop being such a total coward and tell us your answer.

(And you can lose the tone. It doesn't help your case that you appear to be oblivious to how stupid you look.)