# Math

Discussion in 'Environment' started by RetiredGySgt, Jan 4, 2010.

1. Online

### RetiredGySgtDiamond Member

Joined:
May 6, 2007
Messages:
42,516
6,758
Trophy Points:
1,840
Location:
North Carolina
Ratings:
+12,447
Anyone here have trouble with basic math?

IF it is a given that today the average temperature is over 1 degree warmer than 100 years ago and that that one degree was not a constant increase, rather in spirts and jumps, does anyone have a difficulty in grasping that the AVERAGE temperature today will be higher then the average temperature before the last large gain of temperature increase?

It is a given that from 1980 to 1998 the average temperature increased somewhere just over 1/3 of a degree across the earth. Does anyone have a difficulty in now understanding that average temperatures for each year AFTER this event will normally and naturally be HIGHER then those temperatures in the years BEFORE the rise? And that when comparing yearly temperatures over the last 100 years that in fact the last 10 years which all occurred after the last know jump in temperature would naturally tend to be HIGHER then all the years before in that 100 year period?

Just curious since the global warming fanatics think they make a point by showing temperatures over a year are now higher then previously.

• Thank You! x 1
2. Online

### &#9773;proletarian&#9773;Guest

Ratings:
+0
Assuming your definition of 'large increase' is such that it falls within the last 100 years.

You actually felt the need to state that?
so... if A, then A, basically?

I don't see why you felt the need state 'if A then A'.

3. Offline

### Midnight MarauderBANNED

Joined:
Feb 28, 2009
Messages:
12,404
1,873
Trophy Points:
0
Ratings:
+1,873
The simple addition and division by Lord Monckton using the IPCC's own numbers and assumes for the exercise they are correct is what I call "Monckton's Razor" and it's quite effective and also alarming.

Watch: Using their OWN numbers. Monckton completely destroys the IPCC's whole pet theory. With nothing other than simple math.

Now, the discussion continues with actual measurements from a renowned climatologist:

Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
4. Offline

### SinatraSenior Member

Joined:
Feb 5, 2009
Messages:
8,013
1,005
Trophy Points:
48
Ratings:
+1,007

That is amazing isn't it? We could turn back the clock on CO2 emissions a hundred years and the resulting impact on climate is so minimal as to make the entire premise an absurdity wrapped in sheer madness...

5. Offline

### Midnight MarauderBANNED

Joined:
Feb 28, 2009
Messages:
12,404
1,873
Trophy Points:
0
Ratings:
+1,873
All driven by hubris, vanity, and the desire to redistribute wealth on a global scale by fraudulent means.

6. Online

### Old RocksDiamond Member

Joined:
Oct 31, 2008
Messages:
57,932
7,011
Trophy Points:
1,840
Location:
Portland, Ore.
Ratings:
+18,073
Monkton and Beck. Truly a match made in heaven. Two freakin' idiots spouting nonsense. Dr. Gavin Shmidt took apart dingbat Monkton's non-peer reviewed submissions to the American Physical Society.

Richard Littlemore | Monckton Goes Postal Over RealScience Riposte

Journalist and failed politician Christopher Walter (the self-celebrating Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) has launched a blustering counter-attack on Dr. Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate, attempting to avenge Schmidt's impertinence for picking apart Monckton's amateur science submission to a newsletter of the American Physical Society.

Once more unto the bray
Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases skeptics&#8212; gavin @ 23 July 2008
We are a little late to the party, but it is worth adding a few words now that our favourite amateur contrarian is at it again. As many already know, the Forum on Physics and Society (an un-peer-reviewed newsletter published by the otherwise quite sensible American Physical Society), rather surprisingly published a new paper by Monckton that tries again to show using rigorous arithmetic that IPCC is all wrong and that climate sensitivity is negligible. His latest sally, like his previous attempt, is full of the usual obfuscating sleight of hand, but to save people the time in working it out themselves, here are a few highlights.

RealClimate: Once more unto the bray

As Deltoid quickly noticed the most egregious error is a completely arbitrary reduction (by 66%) of the radiative forcing due to CO2. He amusingly justifies this with reference to tropical troposphere temperatures &#8211; neglecting of course that temperatures change in response to forcing and are not the forcing itself. And of course, he ignores the evidence that the temperature changes are in fact rather uncertain, and may well be much more in accord with the models than he thinks.

7. Offline

### PLYMCO_PILGRIMGold Member

Joined:
Jul 3, 2009
Messages:
17,416
2,855
Trophy Points:
183
Location:
America's Home Town
Ratings:
+2,865
global warming always makes me think of this Lincoln quote

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

8. Offline

### Midnight MarauderBANNED

Joined:
Feb 28, 2009
Messages:
12,404
1,873
Trophy Points:
0
Ratings:
+1,873
Show us all where his math is wrong how about?

You can't.

Title
Replies Views
Last Message

Replies:
15
Views:
16

Replies:
41
Views:
169

Replies:
313
Views:
2,198

Replies:
109
Views:
909

Replies:
3
Views:
4