Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4C by 2100
.7c + .8c = 1.5c of warming since 1880 by 2100
1.2c+.8c =2c of warming since 1880 by 2100
Let's say the forcing does speed warming up to .16c per decade by mid century??? Let's avg it at .16c for the next 8.5 decades..= 1.4c of warming
+.8c = 2.2c above 1880 levels.
So a likely range of 1.5 to 2.2c of total warming by 2100.
If this paper has any reality to it = something big is going to snap. AND IT BETTER BE FAST.
You AGW idiots dumb down math with your stupid "averages" as if exponential and differential equations
don`t even exist.
I`ll give you a simple example
An average is the sum of all elements divided by the number of elements.
That`s fine for simple stuff if x is a constant with a + or - variation.
It`s utter nonsense to express even a simple linear function where x increases by a fixed increment as an "average"
Example,
What kind of idiot would even look for the "average" of that function?
Answer: a "climatologist"
I you do that with an increment i=1 till n=10 then the "climatology math" would come up with an "average" of 5.5
So if n were a temperature and increments i=
by 0.1, then, to get this stupid "average" you have sum it up till n= 10 and then divide it by the 100 elements it took to get to n=10 then the
"average" comes out at 505/100= 5.05....which is already more than 9% lower than what you got for the same range and the same linear function.
The only difference was that we got to n=10 in 10 steps incrementing with 1...and the second time we got to n=10 in 100 steps but incrementing by only 0.1. In both cases the n, or the temperature as it were has increased by the
same amount per time and was the same function!.
So what` the
"average"?
Is it 5.5 or 5.05 or should it have been what a 5th grader would say is in the middle between 0 and 10 ?
It gets even worse when "climatologists" start multiplying their idiotic "averages" with huge factors to a global scale and for several centuries.
They have entire cities disappearing under the water, predict ocean level rise in 0.001 meter increments and tell us what the "average temperature" will be 150 years from now or what the "anomaly" is over a vast area where they did not even bother to record any data.
But what you just did
was even dumber than that
you took the
"average" 0.16
increase then multiplied it by 8.5 = 1.36, rounded it up to 1.4 and added it !
That`s like saying,...:
so far the "average" population is P...
while it`s increasing at a rate of 1.14% per year, and
then say in 10 years it has grown by 1.14 *10=11.4 %
If you start out with P= 100 then you would have 101.4 after the first year
102.8 after the second year, and you would be at 11.7 % more
already after 7 years, not in 10 ..
In 10 years you got
14.9 % more not just 11.4 %
Don`t you understand exponential functions?
If you do,
then use it to see how ridiculous the temperature would be in 2100 if you do it
properly with an increase of 0.16 per decade.
My guess is that the people who write the programs for these computer models that shoot way over the top
do plug in the proper exponential functions...but all they get from the AGW dick-heads as "source" data are these dumbed down linear milk maid math "averages"...
While you are at it tell me how they get a "global average temperature" of 14 + whatever stupid "anomaly" out of this:
For the tropics you got at best an "average" temperature of +25C, which is ~ 4/10th of the total area
And for the rest of the 2 remaining caps which are 6/10th of the globe it`s at least down to ~ -10 C
You wont even get up to a
"global mean average" of
+14C even if I`ll let you have the full 30 degrees for the entire tropical belt line !
Anybody who had to take math at a higher than elementary level is sick of these stupid and simplistic washed and re-washed "averages" and how they are being served up as "source data".
