Perhaps true if you’ve not included one of my custom “convenience initialisation” FORTRAN libraries that e.g. redefines 2 as 2.4.
[Implementation-dependent hack where a subroutine is called with a constant where the function expects a variable; and updates the value of the variable internally.]
I think that you are way too provocative here. I don’t want to see the looming avalanche of criticisms and whining and attacks on RealClimate.ORG, AlGore.org, 350.org, and elsewhere.
That reminds me of the objections against us putting the climate model predictions and satellite observations of the same variable on the same graph. It was claimed it wasn’t peer-reviewed research.
Eureka!
I have found empirical evidence that 2+2=1, disproving the theory presented above. If you take two piles of apples (using units recommended by Dr Spencer) and add them together with two other piles of apples then you will end up with one pile of apples.
Indisputable empirical evidence that elementary school mathematics is a hoax!
Although to be fair, like in all experiments, the outcome of course depends on how the experiment is set up and how the entities used are defined. So claiming that this single experiment disproves Dr Spencer’s theory would likely need to go through proper scientific vetting before being accepted or rejected. Might also be worth to look at other experiments that have investigated the same phenomenon before drawing too far-reaching conclusions.
Great come-back actually! 🙂
And great to hear it works for bullshit as well, I wouldn’t know myself. But then again, I might be a bullshit denier and maybe I have never really tried to be critical of things I say or write or think so I should try to be humble with my revolutionary results. After all, 2+2=4 is the consensus among skilled mathematicians. Although they might be corrupt, as my experiment clearly indicates.
Just remember what prof. Richard Feynman said:”It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”.
Probably best to stick with my empirical evidence after all.
Learn a lesson from Brexit, the establishment will gang together and lie like anything to prove a false statistic. Since Brexit Britain is booming and all the establishment are now singing a different tune. I haven’t believed in Global warming by man since 2006, its just a matter of time before the evidence becomes apparent, trouble is we have no plan for lower food production.
2 is the successor of 1.
Therefore 2 = 1 + 1.
Therefore 2 + 2 = 2 + 1 + 1.
3 is the successor of 2.
Therefore 3 = 2 + 1.
Therefore 2 + 2 = 3 + 1.
4 is the successor of 3.
Therefore 4 = 3 + 1.
Therefore 2 + 2 = 4.
I put two ice cubes in my drink. I added another two. A short while later, without touching the drink, there were no ice cubes at all. Two ice cubes plus two ice cubes seemed to equal no ice at all!
It seems that no matter how seductive your hypothesis is, a single experiment can prove it wrong.
Everyone knows the outcome of 4 is the result of somebody’s privilege imposed by the will to power, the truth is 4 identifies as 3 and the attempt to impose 4 is a violation of numeral rights
No no no. You are all wrong. It’s the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. You have this 2 that is floating around and when it comes close to another 2 floating around, they react with each other in such a way that causes them to join together yielding a 22!
Home/Blog
Is that model output, or actual data?
Model, but based upon observed data. Can’t guarantee the data haven’t been fiddled with, though.
Incontrovertible evidence of catastrophic man made climate change. The science is settled!
If 1+1=3, then 2+2 is surely 6?
The second 2 is a fake.
The SurfaceMath Project has determined that 2/3 of those numbers were obtained from parking lots and airports.
I note that’s a somewhat constrained claim given there are only integer values shown without being declared..
As I understand it, larger non integer values of 2 will result in (2 + 2) equalling values approaching & even exceeding 5!
Sounds like a programmer just checked in.
This should be a fun thread.
Cheers.
Hmm. No units mentioned. If the units are km and we add 2km north to 2km east, we get 2.828km north-east.
I don’t like the direction you’re going with this.
Thanks for the morning chuckle!
That only works well on most of the planet. If you’re 2 miles or 2 km away from the North Pole, your result will not be 2.828 km.
Don’t forget to account for drifting sea ice!
For all values of 2!
Including 2 factorial!
I must ask first, given your assertion. Which measurement scale are you using?
The apples and oranges scale.
Hahaha, ok, then you get four pineapples
(?)…
Just trying to stimulate debate on a potentially contentious topic.
Two Victorian coal fired power stations plus two South Australian coal fired power stations equals 4
Roys joke here is we dismantled the two in SA, by the way what did socialist use before candles?………………….electricity tish boom
Perhaps true if you’ve not included one of my custom “convenience initialisation” FORTRAN libraries that e.g. redefines 2 as 2.4.
[Implementation-dependent hack where a subroutine is called with a constant where the function expects a variable; and updates the value of the variable internally.]
And you work for the IPCC … or is it NOAA??
I hear that 2+2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.
no .. one can round down to the lower integer only and get 4.9999999.. *just* shy of 5 . close enough for a consensus
Dr Spencer,
That’s normal mathematics.
Climatological mathematics redefines 2 to be anything at all, depending on who’s asking the question, and why.
So, in climatese, 2 + 2 = whatever you want!
Good for forecasting yesterday’s weather.
Cheers.
Roy says, “Just trying to stimulate debate on a potentially contentious topic.”
How about this one:
Does 0.9999999… = 1?
There’s been a great Wikipedia editing war over that one!
In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11.
In base e, 2 + 2 = 1.102001. I think. I may have never converted a number to an irrational base before.
>>> e = 2.718
>>> divmod(4, e)
(1.0, 1.282)
>>> divmod(1.282*e, e)
(1.0, 0.7664759999999999)
>>> divmod(.766*e, e)
(0.0, 2.081988)
>>> divmod(2.082*e, e)
(2.0, 0.2228759999999994)
>>> divmod(.2229*e, e)
(0.0, 0.6058422)
>>> divmod(.6058*e, e)
(0.0, 1.6465644)
>>> divmod(1.646*e, e)
(1.0, 1.7558280000000002)
Contentious. The mods are divided over this one.
+1
After this shocking comment, I am really anticipating the September T records…
Good to see the occasional light-hearted thread, to break the heaviness and monotony of the unsettling climate story!
P.S. If any deniers of climate realism are reading this, go forth and multiply (with yourself).
Mathematics is needed when you can not make observations.
with enough feedback, it is possible to have 2+2=5 or even 2+2=7
Yes! Thanks for the positive feedback!
Checking:
2+2=4
multiply both sides by 0
0*(2+2) =? 0*4
0*2+0*2 =? 0
0+0 =? 0
0=0
yes, you are correct.
I suppose “2+2=4” is just an introduction. As sure as ……
I am curious.
Richard Werme failed to mention that near the poles 2+2=2.
Start at the South Pole Walk two miles North then two miles West.You are still two miles from the pole.
As wrong as GHE.
Somewhat less contentious is 1 + 3 = 4.
Might be true because every even integer seems to be the sum of two primes.
How does that work with 7?
7 is itself a prime so certainly not an even integer.
It’s Goldbach’s conjecture, never proven true, but checked up to 4 billion billions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
Of course the mathematicians who claim that 7 is not even an even number might be corrupt.
The only even prime is 2, all others are odd. The sum of any two odd integers is always even. Need we go further?
Apparently you need to go further:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
I’ve got it…….1984…….-2016 equals 3 plus 2 or 5.
PS the war with East Asia is going well
I’m sure Exxon new about this 30 years ago, and yet did nothing!
Will she or won’t she?
http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
“2+2=4”
I think that you are way too provocative here. I don’t want to see the looming avalanche of criticisms and whining and attacks on RealClimate.ORG, AlGore.org, 350.org, and elsewhere.
“2+2=4.”
Citation?
I hate to ask for proof, but for all I know you could be just making this stuff up.
That reminds me of the objections against us putting the climate model predictions and satellite observations of the same variable on the same graph. It was claimed it wasn’t peer-reviewed research.
Has it ever been peer reviewed?
(And that wasn’t the only criticism. I’m sure you saw Gavin Schmidt’s long post on RealClimate about this.)
Eureka!
I have found empirical evidence that 2+2=1, disproving the theory presented above. If you take two piles of apples (using units recommended by Dr Spencer) and add them together with two other piles of apples then you will end up with one pile of apples.
Indisputable empirical evidence that elementary school mathematics is a hoax!
Although to be fair, like in all experiments, the outcome of course depends on how the experiment is set up and how the entities used are defined. So claiming that this single experiment disproves Dr Spencer’s theory would likely need to go through proper scientific vetting before being accepted or rejected. Might also be worth to look at other experiments that have investigated the same phenomenon before drawing too far-reaching conclusions.
Cheers!
/Martin
The same result has been observed with piles of bullshit (private communication).
Great come-back actually! 🙂
And great to hear it works for bullshit as well, I wouldn’t know myself. But then again, I might be a bullshit denier and maybe I have never really tried to be critical of things I say or write or think so I should try to be humble with my revolutionary results. After all, 2+2=4 is the consensus among skilled mathematicians. Although they might be corrupt, as my experiment clearly indicates.
Just remember what prof. Richard Feynman said:”It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”.
Probably best to stick with my empirical evidence after all.
Cheers
Learn a lesson from Brexit, the establishment will gang together and lie like anything to prove a false statistic. Since Brexit Britain is booming and all the establishment are now singing a different tune. I haven’t believed in Global warming by man since 2006, its just a matter of time before the evidence becomes apparent, trouble is we have no plan for lower food production.
Only if you can find two twos.
At the ballet?
Touche.
But its possible to carry the two thing too far too.
Two piles of sand plus two piles of sand makes one pile of sand i.e 2+2 = 1
The mathematical proof for this is actually not that straightforward: http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/as2446/224.pdf
Ha! I’m glad that someone took the time to check it out, even as late as 2010! A true skeptic.
2 is the successor of 1.
Therefore 2 = 1 + 1.
Therefore 2 + 2 = 2 + 1 + 1.
3 is the successor of 2.
Therefore 3 = 2 + 1.
Therefore 2 + 2 = 3 + 1.
4 is the successor of 3.
Therefore 4 = 3 + 1.
Therefore 2 + 2 = 4.
Is that in the British, American, Metric or SI system?
PS NASA “only” lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because of that confusion.
I put two ice cubes in my drink. I added another two. A short while later, without touching the drink, there were no ice cubes at all. Two ice cubes plus two ice cubes seemed to equal no ice at all!
It seems that no matter how seductive your hypothesis is, a single experiment can prove it wrong.
On occasion, 2 + 2 != 4.
Cheers.
On the other hand, I read in a book by a well known author, that 2 + 2 = 5!
Let a=b.
Multiply by a
a^2 = ab
Subtract b^2 from both sides
a^2 – b^2 = ab – b^2
Factor
(a+b)*(a-b) = b(a-b)
cancel the (a-b) from both sides
a+b = b
Let a=2. Then b=2 (from the first line)
2+2 = 2
I guess Roy was wrong after all!
Hidden division by 0 in the cancel step. 🙂
I don’t think so; That’s exactly what CAGW proponents would claim but they are probably corrupt.
So I still believe it: 2 + 2 = 2
Sure it is. Given that a=b, then (a-b)=0. In that step, both sides are divided by that in the ‘cancel’ operation.
Clearly you are not a CAGW proponent.
I wonder what a CAGW exponent would do.
Ric… Undefined at this point…
Well, admittedly, you’re not a CAGW exponent.
But this doesn’t mean you’re right either…
You’re all wrong!
This should explain the false logic used here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8XMeocLflc
Everyone knows the outcome of 4 is the result of somebody’s privilege imposed by the will to power, the truth is 4 identifies as 3 and the attempt to impose 4 is a violation of numeral rights
2+2=4
then later
2+2=5
Sounds like the algorithm for a hockey stick graph. Presented for my peers to review.
That’s trick mathematical proof of the GHE:
2 W/m2 solar insolation + 2 W/m2 of back radiation = 4 W/m2 of downward surface flux.
mpainter told me so.
No no no. You are all wrong. It’s the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. You have this 2 that is floating around and when it comes close to another 2 floating around, they react with each other in such a way that causes them to join together yielding a 22!
Read about it on my website bs.gov
In reality 2+2 = 2+2
RS says “it looks increasingly like 2016 might be a new record-warm year (since the satellite record began in 1979) in the UAH dataset.”
What, no more Hiatus. Where dat little sucker go?
2+2=4.
Have you cleared this with your legal advisor?
A good lawyer says 2+2=4.
A climate change lawyer says “2+2? What do you want it to equal?”