#### jzk

##### Super Anarchist

- 12,972

- 476

Do you understand it? What do you think it is showing?Why do you post a graph you don't understand, and claim it shows things it does not?

Dog2 why do you lie?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Alan H
- Start date

- 12,972

- 476

Do you understand it? What do you think it is showing?Why do you post a graph you don't understand, and claim it shows things it does not?

Dog2 why do you lie?

Do you understand it? What do you think it is showing?

Did they teach you "How To Read A Graph" in engineering school? Something about numbers, maybe even a grasp of the concept

If the

Now read what it says at the top of the graph. You can read, yes?

- 12,972

- 476

Now back to my question. What do you think it is showing?Did they teach you "How To Read A Graph" in engineering school? Something about numbers, maybe even a grasp of the conceptrate of change.

If therate of changeis above zero, what's happening here?

Now read what it says at the top of the graph. You can read, yes?

- 12,972

- 476

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.Did they teach you "How To Read A Graph" in engineering school? Something about numbers, maybe even a grasp of the conceptrate of change.

If therate of changeis above zero, what's happening here?

Now read what it says at the top of the graph. You can read, yes?

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.

Graph Ites of the Right Unite!

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?

- 12,972

- 476

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.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?

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?

Yes, the temperature change is the same as the departure from the average.

Umm, no.

...

In any case, the graph most certainly does not graph "temperature rate of change" as you claimed.

Why doesn't it? It is titled "Global Mean Temperature Change" and sometimes that change is less, other times more... in other words, a varying rate.

I'd go into "mean" versus "average" but where's the entertainment value?

- 12,972

- 476

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.Umm, no.

Why doesn't it? It is titled "Global Mean Temperature Change" and sometimes that change is less, other times more... in other words, a varying rate.

I'd go into "mean" versus "average" but where's the entertainment value?

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.

jizz is "mean" and "below average", he must have some clue.I'd go into "mean" versus "average" but where's the entertainment value?

Strike that last bit.

... But the graph is not graphing "rate of change." You can tell that because the units are temperature, not temperature/time. ...

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.

- 12,972

- 476

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.

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.

So, a graph that shows the change of temperature over time... whether that change is increasing or decreasing over a given set of years... does not show "rate of change"

Just trying to make it official.

- 12,972

- 476

Just trying to make your stupidity official?So, a graph that shows the change of temperature over time... whether that change is increasing or decreasing over a given set of years... does not show "rate of change"

Just trying to make it 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?

* which he didn't understand any better than JZKNannyGoatSucks was much better* at this. just sayin'

*extensive graphs in full color

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.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.