jzk
Super Anarchist
- 13,032
- 483
Do you understand it? What do you think it is showing?
COP27 climate summit
- Thread starter Alan H
- Start date
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
Did they teach you "How To Read A Graph" in engineering school? Something about numbers, maybe even a grasp of the concept rate of change.
If the rate of change is above zero, what's happening here?
Now read what it says at the top of the graph. You can read, yes?
jzk
Super Anarchist
- 13,032
- 483
Now back to my question. What do you think it is showing?
jzk
Super Anarchist
- 13,032
- 483
Ok, dipshit, before you embarrass yourself any further, what are the units of the graph? What would the units be if the graph were actually graphing "rate of change" as you suggest.
The graph is most certainly not graphing the rate of change. It is graphing a temperature difference from an average. In other words, a temperature anomaly. But, it does happen to cite, but not graph, a rate of change. See if you can find it.
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
What I'm curious about.... a graph titled "Global Mean Temperature Change" is supposed to be the same thing... according to JZK... as a graph entitled "Temperature Departure From Average"
When it's science, words don't mean anything? They both have "UAH" in the title? They both have "Temperature" in the title? They're the same because they both have similar-looking jiggly lines?
jzk
Super Anarchist
- 13,032
- 483
Yes, the temperature change is the same as the departure from the average. There is a difference between "mean" and "average" but it is not meaningful on those graphs.
In any case, the graph most certainly does not graph "temperature rate of change" as you claimed. But it does cite it. Did you notice what that "rate of change" was and which way it was changing?
You really don't know how to read a graph?
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
jzk
Super Anarchist
- 13,032
- 483
When you plot the measurement of temperature, given that the values are different, you can see that it is changing, and thus between any given points there is a rate of change. But the graph is not graphing "rate of change." You can tell that because the units are temperature, not temperature/time.
You don't know what you are talking about. No one here really cares because they never expected you to know what you are talking about in the first place.
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
jzk
Super Anarchist
- 13,032
- 483
Yes, rate of change of temperature is nowhere to be found on either axis. If they were plotting rate of change, the Y axis would be something like temperature/decade.Huh, I thought that one axis was "temperature" and the other was "time" and the units were degrees and years.
This isn't engineering school material, this is grade school math.
By all means, keep right on calling me names.
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
jzk
Super Anarchist
- 13,032
- 483
Just trying to make your stupidity official?
Think about it this way. You asked dog if the graph was "zero" implying that the data point would be "zero" if temperature were staying the same. That would be true if it were a graph of "rate of change" of temperature. But this is a graph of the actual temperature anomaly. So, if it stays the same anywhere from year to year, then it is not changing. So, if the temperature plotted at "0.8" for ten years in a row, that would mean there was ZERO rate of change.
You really aren't this stupid, are you?
This is terrifying in so many ways. I have not a clue how I will ever explain to my children, much less my grandchildren, why the most advanced countries on the planet lost their shit over a 1 degree temperature rise which took 140 years to accomplish. I fear some of my grand kids will think their grandpa was a dolt for worrying over shit like that when they already go skiing up in Colorado in sub-zero temps and love boating down south with temps in the 80's ."Hey grampy! We know how to deal with 60 degrees variations! 1 degree? We've got this, you old fool! "
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
* which he didn't understand any better than JZK
Because the effects of that one degree already costs 500 billion a year for the USA alone. That is $1300 per year per citizen. This number can easily be quadrupled or even worse over the next few decennia.
