Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > From the archives, at EM's own request

On "unthreaded" I commented


EM - somewhere I have a file with a small subset of mathematical and statistical howlers you have come up with over the past few years (logarithms, ocean temperature accuracy,...)
Jan 22, 2017 at 2:50 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

EM responded

Martin A
Please publish your file. We could have some fun fact-checking.
Jan 22, 2017 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

When I get the time, I'll post one or two gems on this thread. With a certain reluctance because EM does sometimes concede gracefully that he has got it wrong.

Jan 22, 2017 at 6:31 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

EM ON LOGARITHMS (I)

The first to be retrieved from the vaults. Key postings in bold. Horizontal line between postings.


Did Walport also not remember that CO2 has a logarithmic effect? Therefore the if the first 10 gigatons cause .4C warming it will take 20 gigatons to cause the second .4C warming and 40 gigatons to cause the next .4C warming.
Mar 31, 2014 at 5:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterhum

_______________________________________________________________________

Hum
The decrease in warming effect due to increasing CO2 is natural logarithmic (base e), not base 10 logarithmic. Over the range of concentrations you describe the link between CO2 and temperature is close to linear.
Mar 31, 2014 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

_______________________________________________________________________

The decrease in warming effect due to increasing CO2 is natural logarithmic (base e), not base 10 logarithmic.
Mar 31, 2014 at 7:15 PM | Entropic man

Bwahaha! EM demonstrates once again that all he needs is enough rope.

Mar 31, 2014 at 7:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterJake Haye


_______________________________________________________________________

Mar 31, 2014 at 7:54 PM | Jake Haye

You will have to explain that to him...slowly.
Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Jones



_______________________________________________________________________
...
Jake Haye

The standard formula for calculating the effect of an increase in CO2 forcing is

dF = 5.35 * ln (C/Co)

dF is the change in forcing in w/m^2
Ln is natural logarithm
Co is the initial CO2 concentration
C is the final CO2 concentration
5.35 is a constant of proportionality.

www.globalwarmingequation.info/eqn%20derivation.pdf
Mar 31, 2014 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


_______________________________________________________________________


...decrease in warming effect due to increasing CO2 is natural logarithmic (base e), not base 10 logarithmic.
Mar 31, 2014 at 7:15 PM Entropic man

Have I misunderstood? I thought the belief was that warming increased with increasing CO2?

If what you say is in fact correct, the next ice age can't be far away.

And what difference does the base of logarithms make, give or take a scale factor?
Apr 1, 2014 at 8:39 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A


_______________________________________________________________________


dF = 5.35 * ln (C/Co)
Mar 31, 2014 at 10:43 PM | Entropic man


Mathematics Level 1 (Foundation)

Question 1

(a) Write the above Magic Climate Formula to use log10 instead of ln. Hint: you may need to change the Magic Climate Number. [2 marks]

(b) Hence, or otherwise, show that the statement, "The warming effect due to increasing CO2 is natural logarithmic (base e), not base 10 logarithmic" is ignorant bollocks. [2 marks]

Apr 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterJake Haye


_______________________________________________________________________


Double the concentration of CO2 and its direct forcing effect increases by 5W/m^2. That leads to about 1.2C of direct warming, plus extra warming due to secondary forcing. The size of the latter depends on climate sensitivity.

Double the concentration again and you get another 5W/m^2. Warming increases with extra CO2, but the slope of the temperature/ CO2 graph decreases at higher CO2 concentrations.

Jake Haye is right that each extra unit of CO2 has a smaller warming effect than the one before, but his insistence on base 10 logarithmic change exaggerates the effect.
Apr 1, 2014 at 11:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


_______________________________________________________________________



Entropic man: "[Jake Haye's] insistence on base 10 logarithmic change exaggerates the effect."
The base of the logarithm is immaterial.
5.35*ln(C/C0) = 3.71*log2(C/C0) = 12.32*log10(C/C0) = 5.35*ln(b)*log_base_b(C/C0) for any b>0.
The math is quite settled on this.

Apr 2, 2014 at 2:47 AM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

_______________________________________________________________________

Bullshit is saying what you think might (or might not) be true without actually knowing or checking but with the intention of convincing that you seem to know what you are talking about.

EM is an artist with some talent.

The decrease in warming effect due to increasing CO2 is natural logarithmic (base e), not base 10 logarithmic. Over the range of concentrations you describe the link between CO2 and temperature is close to linear.
Mar 31, 2014 at 7:15 PM Entropic man


Jake Haye is right that each extra unit of CO2 has a smaller warming effect than the one before, but his insistence on base 10 logarithmic change exaggerates the effect.
Apr 1, 2014 at 11:46 PM Entropic man


EM please point out the difference between appropriately scaled base-e and base-10 logarithms...

x . . . . 5.35 ln(x). . . . . 12.32 log 10(x)

1. . . . . . 0.00. . . . . . . 0.00
2. . . . . . 3.71. . . . . . . 3.71
3. . . . . . 5.88. . . . . . . 5.88
4. . . . . . 7.42. . . . . . . 7.42
5. . . . . . 8.61. . . . . . . 8.61
6. . . . . . 9.59. . . . . . . 9.59
7. . . . . . 10.41. . . . . . 10.41
8. . . . . . 11.13. . . . . . 11.13
9. . . . . . 11.76. . . . . . 11.76
10. . . . . 12.32. . . . . . 12.32

[Harold W - you beat me to it]

Apr 2, 2014 at 9:31 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A


_______________________________________________________________________

The key words here are appropriately scaled.

You have produced an alternative formulation of the same calculation using log base 10 and an appropriate constant. That's fair enough; but is it what Jake was saying?
Apr 2, 2014 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


_______________________________________________________________________

Jake or hum (Mar 31, 2014 at 5:45 PM) ?
Apr 2, 2014 at 5:30 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

_______________________________________________________________________

Martin A, Harold W, hum, Jake Hayes

Hum said " if the first 10 gigatons cause .4C warming it will take 20 gigatons to cause the second .4C warming and 40 gigatons to cause the next .4C warming.".

I said that each doubling of CO2 concentration produces the same warming as the previous doubling.

I stand corrected. The two statements say the same thing.

Jake and Harold are right too. I hadn't picked up on what he meant by the magic climate number, nor remembered that you could get equivalent formulations using different bases by using different constants.

Mea culpa :-)
Apr 2, 2014 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Jan 22, 2017 at 6:38 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A, I expect Entropic Man will "do a Pachauri", and claim someone else (the Russians/Chinese/Trump?) hacked into his Climate Science stupidity account.. Total Denial is all Climate Science ever consisted of.

I fully accept we all make mistakes and typo's, but the consistent pattern suggests EM copies his verbatim. I have also noticed changes in the writing style, consistent with different authors having their work copied.

The inconsistencies with EM's output are consistent, as are the inaccuracies, mistakes and balderdash.

The clot thickens.

Jan 22, 2017 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin A

Right enough. I'm not a mathematician and did not know that 5.35ln(x) was equivalent to
12.32log 10(x).

Read your own file. In the last comment I even acknowledged my mistake once I realised what the problem was.

This came up again a couple of days ago. Supertroll mentioned the logarithmic nature of CO2 induced warming but implied that the effect was large enough that CO2 driven warming would not be a problem.

Repeating the numbers:

One doubling from 1880 CO2 (280ppm) eventually produces 5.35ln(560/280)3/3.7 = 3.0068C.

Two doublings produces 5.35ln(1120/280)3/3.7 = 6.013C.

The difference in rate of warming between linear increase and logarithmic increase due to CO2 is negligible, for the next few centuries at least.

Jan 22, 2017 at 9:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man, I do not claim to be a scientist.

Was your response to Martin A your own work, or did you get help?

I am just trying to clarify whether you are capable of spotting lies from Climate Scientists, as you never commented on Phil Clarke's thread on Gergis, which established what a load of Peer Reviewed incompetence Climate Science actually is.

Jan 22, 2017 at 10:23 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Read your own file. In the last comment I even acknowledged my mistake once I realised what the problem was.

Yes, EM. As I said (I think I said it; I meant to) you graciously acknowledged you had got it wrong. Chapeau.

Jan 22, 2017 at 10:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Speaking of exaggeration, we are aren't we, why not address the exaggerated alarm about AnthroCO2? It's being newly discovered, well, re-discovered that our use of fossil fuel to build a modern society has the serendipitous effect of mildly and net beneficially warming the earth and of greening it such as to feed billions.
==========================

Jan 22, 2017 at 10:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Another from the archives, confirming that understanding logs is not really EM's greatest strength.

EM ON LOGARITHMS (II)

Rotational fine structure

Are you sure you read my post properly.

The calculated figures for forcing are 3.71W after one doubling, 7.42W after two doublings and 1.13W (sic) after three doublings. All three are increases relative to the value for 280ppm.

They were calculated using the formula ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co)

If the increase were linear the three values would have been 3.71W, 7.42W and 11.13W. You have to go into the third decimal place to see any difference.

Your 1.35AM calculation assumes that ln(x/y)=lnx-lny. Would one of the mathematicians here care to comment?
Jun 7, 2016 at 4:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


(original comment)


...If the increase were linear the three values would have been 3.71W, 7.42W and 11.13W. You have to go into the third decimal place to see any difference....

Huh?

2 × (3.71/2) = 3.71 (one doubling)
4 × (3.71/2) = 7.42 (two doublings)
8 × (3.71/2) = 14.84 (three doublings)

Jan 23, 2017 at 10:06 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Golf Charlie

LOL

I am greatly amused by your assumption that I am a professional poster becked up by an expert staff telling me what to say.

There is a word for people who think that an organised conspiracy is out to get them.

Paranoia!

Jan 23, 2017 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man, well if you are making up all this bollox without assistance, why do you bother?

Why should anyone trust your claims of honesty now, when you have been dishonest and unreliable before about your own credentials and abilities in the comments that prompted this thread?

If no one is supplying information to you, then you are demonstrating why your trust in Climate Science is based on your own failed understanding.

Do remember that you are the one lecturing to others, from a position of failure, on the moral low ground.

You really ought to spend some time reading and learning, from those outside the elite Hockey Teamster clique, then your blatant denial may end.

Jan 23, 2017 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin A, supertroll

Ah, I think I see what you are complaining about.

Using the empirical formula ∆f=5.35ln(C/Co) conventional physics predicts that each doubling of CO2 would produce the same amount of additional forcing.
Thus an increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm would produce 3.7W/m2 of forcing. Increasing from 560ppm to 1120 produces a further 3.7W/m2.

It also predicts that each increase in CO2 of 100ppm would produce a smaller increase inforcing than the previous 100ppm.
Thus an increase from 300ppm to 400ppm would produce 1.54W/m2. An increase from 400ppm to 500ppm would produce 1.19W/m2.

Leaving aside your doubts about the physics, could you critique this mathematics.

Jan 23, 2017 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

I am greatly amused by your assumption that I am a professional poster becked up by an expert staff telling me what to say.
Once again, you show your remarkable ability at extracting and extrapolating the most obtuse nonsense from something written. The closest I can find that Golf Charlie has written to warrant your response is this: “Was your response to Martin A your own work, or did you get help?” You might dismiss me as a dumb blonde, but I can see nothing in that statement that even implies that you are being paid for this, or that you have expert staff backing (or even “becking”) you up (and if you have, what could they be “expert” in; certainly not real climate science); the closest it comes to is that you have a colleague, associate, friend or partner who has assisted you in addressing the point and formulating your reply.

Jan 23, 2017 at 2:45 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

They are clearly not expert, even if they do exist (which I don't think they do).

Jan 23, 2017 at 3:44 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Radical rodent

If you are going to make fun of my poor spelling I suggest that you go find a blind camel to bigger you.

Jan 23, 2017 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man, are you confirming that all your mistakes are your own, and that you are not copying the mistakes of others?

As you never posted on the Gergis thread, how did you work out for yourself that Gergis was Climate Science bollux? Surely you should be an expert Peer Reviewer for Climate Science publications, if you are to be believed, but as you still see nothing wrong in Mann's "work", I don't see why you should be trusted or believed now.

I was gullible to believe in Mann once. Why should I be gullible now, and trust you, not to lie?

Your inconsistencies remain consistent, and your consistency remains inconsistent. You represent Climate Science very well - untrustworthy.

Jan 23, 2017 at 4:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

I suggest that you share Radical Rodent's camel.

Jan 23, 2017 at 4:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

could you critique this mathematics.
Jan 23, 2017 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - I'll be glad to but that may not be for some time, maybe a few days.

Jan 23, 2017 at 4:53 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Entropic Man, I suggest you grow up and stop behaving like a liar caught with his pants, down in front of a camel.

Jan 23, 2017 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

I have put up with your constant sniping in the hope that you might say something useful, and in the old fashioned belief that one should be polite, even to the obnoxious.

No more. When I see some sign that you can be polite and can contribute sensibly to discussion, then I might moderate my view of you. Until then I intend to ignore you.

Jan 23, 2017 at 5:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Martin A

Thank you. They are not complex, but I think you may be able to help. I think in terms of doublings and each doubling is expected to produce equal warming. I surmise that sceptics think in terms of increments, which do decrease in effect as CO2 concentration grows.

Jan 23, 2017 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man, I suggest you grow up and stop behaving like a liar caught with his pants, down in front of a camel.

Jan 23, 2017 at 5:30 PM | golf charlie

Jan 23, 2017 at 9:57 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM, people who live in Green Houses, shouldn't throw stones.

Bullying, lying and threatening in the classroom, may or may not have been your technique, but it seems to be approved in Climate Science. That is why it is facing a mass extinction event.

Climate Science has always ignored those who point out Climate Science's failures. Climate Science's failure to thank, acknowledge or pay Steve McIntyre (and others) simply proves another fact that you and Climate Science simply deny.

Phil Clarke claimed Gergis proved Mann's Hockey Stick. You did not comment on a lengthy thread, despite supporting Mann's Denial of the MWP and LIA. You claim to post your own thoughts. Either you worked out for yourself that the Gergis paper lacked integrity, in which case, congratulations (but you kept quiet to avoid compromising Mann) or you accepted advice from elsewhere.

Either way your loyalty is to the "cause", not the science. But rather than admit it, you had a hissy fit, and tried to blame me for your mistakes. Psychologists call that DENIAL, you are familiar with the term, though clearly not the meaning.

Trump really ought to thank Gergis, (and Shukla) for exceptional contributions to Climate Science.

Jan 24, 2017 at 1:03 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sea levels?

Just a thought...

Jan 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Phil Clarke claimed Gergis proved Mann's Hockey Stick

Alternative fact.

Jan 24, 2017 at 8:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, are you trying to adjust history, to make up for Climate Science's corrupt incompetence?

Jan 24, 2017 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie