## Understanding Progressive Algebra

According to progressive mathematics – the sum of a small positive number and a large negative number, is a large positive number.

Twitter / SteveSGoddard: @MrBuff22 @KevinBuffalo One …

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

### 42 Responses to Understanding Progressive Algebra

1. Don says:

I had to jump in on that Steve on Twitter. These folks are nuttier than a fruitcake.

2. Send Al to the Pole says:

Progressive algebra…. is that like Lumberjack brain surgery?

No offense intended to the fine lumberjacks of the world….

• Andy Oz says:

Using progressive algebra, I can have three wives and two mistresses and still be monogamous. I could even “dress up like a girlie, just like my dear mama”….. but then I’d be a lumberjack, not a progressive algebrist.

3. Send Al to the Pole says:
4. Don says:

Speaking of lumberjacks, here’s the lumberjack song.

• usJim says:

Here’s the one I recall – love the way he makes the ‘saw’ talk:

5. Morgan says:

Global sea ice is the same as it was in 1979:

• Morgan says:

sorry…

• squid2112 says:

Did you also notice something interesting about global sea ice in 1979? … Pay attention to the difference between northern and southern hemisphere ice. It oscillates between north having more, and south having more. It fluctuates back and forth. You certainly don’t hear much about that anywhere. It’s CYCLICAL!

• Morgan says:

Squid, didn’t you hear the news from the climate experts? At the north pole, cold causes water to freeze. At the south pole, warming causes water to freeze. I guess when water molecules are upside down they do everything backwards.

• Truthseeker says:

Morgan,

It is because they are spinning anti-clockwise. You can see that when you drain the water from the bath tub …

6. -=NikFromNYC=- says:

• Gail Combs says:

Tom Lehrer “The New Math”

7. Andy says:

The other person seems confused, if you are being kind, wrong if you are being accurate.

Probably best to look at anomalies rather than area though IMO

Andy

• Gail Combs says:

Actually you are better off looking at the actual effect of the sea ice of the Antarctic vs the sea ice of the Arctic. Using anomalies is just playing into the hands of the Climastrologist who want to downplay the effects of Antarctic sea ice.

Looking at the equinoxes ….to reflect equal energy into space, the “gain” of even 1.0 Mkm^2 of southern sea ice extents [in the Antarctic] needs to be balanced by a loss 2 to 5 LARGER in the Arctic… On top of that LOSS of sea Ice in the Arctic increases the amount of energy leaving the earth while gains in sea ice in the Antarctic reflects incoming sunlight by increasing the albedo. Or to put it more percisely.

LOSS of Arctic sea Ice = loss of energy via increased heat losses from open ocean in the Arctic during the fall (August till it ices over)

GAIN of Antarctic sea Ice = loss of energy via the change in albedo because it is much much closer to the equator and is exposed to 2 to 5 times the radiation that Arctic sea ice is.

Therefore:
LOSS of Arctic sea Ice + GAIN of Antarctic sea Ice = major loss of net energy.

So the effects are NOT the same and the Climastrologists darn well know it which is why ….crickets…. “OH look a SQUIRREL!”

RACookPE1978 @ WUWT has several good comments on Arctic vs Antarctic sea ice.

In this comment he was kind enough to “… duplicate below a “spreadsheet copy” of a spreadsheet I have for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00 on that “average” 342 watts/meter^2 day….
What you want to look at is the column below called “Direct Radiation Horizontal Surface”. Those are radiation received on the equinox for solar radiation at each latitude at noon. “

A couple of his comment that explain more fully what I was trying to say above.

….Just remember, at today’s sea ice extents, the “edge” of the Arctic sea is a tiny ring about latitude 78 -82 north in mid-September. The “edge” of Antarctic’s sea ice minimum is also a “ring” – but that ring is about latitude 66 south. Much closer to the equator, much more energy reflected from the Antarctic sea ice, right?

Now, at maximum extents, the “edge” Arctic sea ice is at its closest point to the equator is only down to 72 north, not even as close to the equator as the minimum Antarctic sea ice! But at its maximum, Antarctic sea ice extents is much, much higher at 59.2 to 59.0 latitude. Closer to the equator than even the most southern tip of Greenland!

Now, at the equinoxes, when both Arctic and Antarctic are both hit by the same solar intensity, the Antarctic Sea Ice receives between 2x (Feb-March) to 5x (September-October) the energy that the Arctic sea ice receives. Thus, to reflect equal energy into space, the “gain” of even 1.0 Mkm^2 of southern sea ice extents needs to be balanced by a loss 2 to 5 LARGER in the Arctic.….
RACookPE1978

In another comment he goes on to say:

Albedo of Arctic sea ice changes only based on day-of-year. Albedo starts high at 0.82, stays steady at 0.82 until May, decreases through the summer to a low of 0.46, then rises again to 0.82 until about September, then remains at 0.82 until the end of December. This is from Dr Curry’s measured data.

1. Albedo of sea ice does NOT change with latitude.

2. Albedo of open ocean changes with every HOUR of every day as the solar elevation angle changes each minute. Specifically, open ocean albedo does NOT change explicitly with latitude, but latitude affects the overall SEA change over day-of-year AND latitude and hour-of-day (HRA), These changes are based on the earth’s declination and geometry and is strictly and specifically defined. But, Hour-of-day and day-of-year CANNOT be separated from latitude.

3. Opposite the above, the yearly maximum solar radiation occurs in early January at 1410 watts.m^2. The minimum solar top-of-atmosphere radiation occurs July 3, when the Arctic sea ice is decreasing strongly day-by-day, BUT while Arctic sea ice is between min and max. Roughly, the edge of Arctic sea ice is between 74 and 76 north.

At the point of maximum solar radiation at TOA, the ANTARCTIC sea ice is is a wide “ring” slowly varying from 59.2 south (last October under 1370 watts/m^2) to about 64 south latitude (in January under 1410 watts/m^2) to a minimum sea ice extent at 3 Mkm^2 (in March at 70 south latitude back down to 1360 watts/m^2). So, when the TOA solar radiation is at its maximum, ARCTIC sea ice is dark. When the top-of-atmosphere radiation is at its max, Antarctic sea ice is not at its minimum.

Net effect: As a whole, Antarctic sea ice is MUCH, MUCH closer to the equator every day of the year.

Overall, increased heat losses from open ocean in the Arctic (when Arctic sea ice is at a minimum in late August-September) are much greater than increased heat absorbed into that open water. More sea ice loss in the Arctic => More heat loss from the planet and a net cooler planet.

The opposite happens in the Antarctic: More sea ice around Antarctica means more heat reflected from the planet and a net cooler planet.

It is not really necessary to “combine” or group the other two parts of the Antarctic

Up north, the Arctic Ocean STARTS at 70 north latitude, and this IS the southern limit of the Arctic Ocean. Essentially ALL “Arctic sea ice” then cycles between 70 north latitude (at MAXIMUM extents at 14.0 Mkm^2) and 80 north (if 4.0 Mkm^2). In the future, this minimum could go even closer to the pole: if there were 1.0 Mkm^2, all the arctic sea ice is a little beanie cap from the pole to 85 north latitude.

The Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING at all times of the year.
The Antarctic sea ice cycles between a minimum of of 4.0 Mkm^2 at latitude 70 south, to a maximum of of 19.5 Mkm^2 at latitude 59.2 south.

The Arctic sea ice only varies between 72 north and 82 north.

On EVERY day of the year, Antarctic sea is exposed to 2 to 5 times the radiation that Arctic sea ice receives, and is therefore Antarctic sea ice is 2 to 5 times MORE important to the earth’s heat balance than the Arctic sea ice. (But the tropics are even more important.)
RACookPE1978

• Gail Combs says:

Paul Vaughan, at Tallbloke’s linked to engineer Alan Cheetham’s website which shows the bipolar seesaw began starting ~1997/98, around the same time as the Super El Nino.

Take a look at the third figure.

This is also when the Earthshine Project graph shows an inflection point and the start of the increase in albedo.

Some how I just can not see the earth ‘warming’ after 1997/98.

• Andy says:

“The Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING at all times of the year.”

I don’t think the evidence backs up that claim to be honest. Looking at this the mimima seem to be roughly the same with small variations. No trend

The maxima seems to have an increasing trend and definitely there is a trend during the freeze season of more ice. But the melt season seems to be the same each year, unfortunately the below only shows two years

But it has been the same for the last 8 or 9 as far as I recall.

Andy

• Keitho says:

Thanks for finding and posting that Gail. I knew I had read it at WUWT but I didn’t know how to find it. Mind you, you have got the most exhaustive collection of interesting and useful stuff I have ever seen.

8. Ben Vorlich says:
9. Twitter should be known as “Air Your Prejudices”. Actually, twitter is a good name for what goes on there.

10. Scott says:

Maybe LK doesn’t know what the word “Global” means.

11. usJim says:

Common Core strikes again; the innumerate are among us …

12. Arctic sea ice has doubled since 2007 so what the hell is LK the buffoon talking about ?

13. philjourdan says:

Liberal math. They are not smart enough for Algebra yet.

• Gail Combs says:

The high school kids now a days can not even multiply 7 X 9 in their heads correctly. Heck my neighbors kids can not add or subtract single digits correctly!!!

(As I said we do children’s entertainment and also try to stuff a bit of knowledge into their skulls while we are at it.)

• philjourdan says:

I am old and gray, but I still do square roots in my head. But my kids? Lost without a calculator! (and their kids do it on their phones).

• Gail Combs says:

I do not want anyone who can not do simple arithmetic dosing my animals (or me) or building bridges I drive over. You need to be able to do a quick and dirty is the number “reasonable” in your head and you can’t do that on a calculator.

Art Robinson had a humorous article in Access to Energy</b. about an engineer he had to hire (per EPA) to put a simple bridge over a small stream. The guy messed up the math so badly you could have used the bridge he designed for traffic across the Mississippi!

14. Robertv says:

The message that mankind has long forgotten.

Today

15. Eric Simpson says:

Had this thought. Skeptics should stop trying to appease the warmist deceivers by saying “we don’t disagree with the warmists that the globe is warming and that humans and CO2 plays a role; the disagreement is on the extent…” But the evidence doesn’t support CO2 or man’s role in it. Period. End of story it should be.

And trying to appease the warmists is like Chamberlain trying to appease Hitler, it’s not going to do any good. The key fact is that there is ZERO evidence that CO2 causes climate warming. The only thing the warmists have is a debatable theoretical model to back their proposition. But the evidence falls way short, like with the ice core data going back hundreds of thousands of years, and like with recent times where CO2 has been rising steadily while temperatures have flatlined. The blatant failing of their models pretty much falsifies their whole theory. Even if you feel the warmists could be largely correct, realize that that’s not what the evidence is, so go ahead and say that that’s not what the evidence supports. Say it: “perhaps what they say is true, BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS.”

Why do we kowtow to the warmists by saying that we don’t disagree with the basics of their theory? It would be like a Republican saying to a Democrat: “we don’t disagree with the Dems that the government should to some degree take over medical care, it’s just a disagreement on the extent of the takeover.”

• Send Al to the Pole says:

Not only should we throw out the theory, we need to ridicule the idiots who stuck with it all this time. They need to be humiliated to the point they become the world’s laughing stock, because that’s what they deserve.

• gator69 says:

What theory? CAGW is a failed hypothesis.

• Gail Combs says:

Two recent peer-reviewed papers (with a H/T to Nik in NYC and Gallopingcamel) give the death blows to CAGW.

Robinson and Catling model closely matches data for Titan’s atmosphere

The R&C model is a fine achievement that provides a mathematical basis for gaining insights into atmospheric physics. The model shows three regions namely the stratosphere where radiative processes dominate, a transition region that occurs at a pressure of ~0.1 bar (tropopause) and below that a convective region (troposphere) where the lapse rate is defined as -g/Cp or less when vapors are present. It appears to correspond well with observations on all seven bodies in our solar system that have significant atmospheres.

Long story short. CO2 radiates in the stratosphere and not the troposphere.

Gallopingcamel says he will be talking to Dr. Robinson shortly, after the school year ends, to get a better understanding of the physics involved so stay tuned.
………………
From Nik:
Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2

Those two papers ARE validated by real life experimental data and between them kill CAGW dead. Add the fact the IPCC models are NOT validated by the last 17+years of temperate data and CAGW should be buried deep deep with abject apologies from Mann, Hansen, Jones and the rest.

• _Jim says:

re: Gail Combs May 30, 2014 at 2:55 am
Long story short. CO2 radiates in the stratosphere and not the troposphere.

Does WV (water vapor, you know, H2O molecules) radiate in the troposphere?

If not, can you explain how WV satellite imagery works? Can you further explain how a wiggling CO2 does _not_ radiate in the troposphere BUT a wiggling H2O molecule does?

VW sat imagery example:
1) SIte: http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/
2) select “Water Vapor”
3) click on map.

.

16. geran says:

Reminds me of the old algebra joke, 2=1.

Assume……………. a =b
Multiply both sides by a….. a^2 = ab
Subtract “b squared from both sides….. a^2-b^2 = ab -b^2
Factoring…………………..(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
Divide both sides by (a-b)……… a+b = b

But, a =b, so…………….2=1

The climate “scientists” will not catch the mathematical flaw.

(So, what’s new?)

• Robertv says:

Assume……………. an orange= an apple

• geran says:

u just flunked 9th grade algebra

• a-b=0

• geran says:

bingo, you cannot divide by zero.

Stark will never make it as a “climate scientist”.

• Well, it’s actually earlier than that: “a^2-b^2 = ab -b^2” is saying that 0=0, which is a tautology. & “(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)” is saying that (a+b)*0=b*0, which is another tautology of an even worse sort. I mean, it’s perfectly true that 50*0=1*0, but the statement is a property of zero, & most certainly doesn’t imply that 50=1.

• Robertv says:

It is claimed that galaxies harbor a super-massive black hole at their centers, along with other black holes dispersed throughout them. All these black holes exist in an alleged expanding big bang universe. However, black hole universes are inconsistent with big bang universes.

• philjourdan says:

My Algebra II teachers showed us that trick. I was very amused by it and still am. But you are correct. Alarmists will never see the trick.

Thanks for the reminder!