lol, what do you believe AGT represents?
Arctic heat
- Thread starter Old Rocks
- Start date
Wuwei
Gold Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 5,342
- 1,178
- 255
Average global temperature.
What do you think it represents?
lol, and what is the reference point for AGT?
Wuwei
Gold Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 5,342
- 1,178
- 255
The Celsius scale. It is defined by ice at 0C, and the boiling point of water at 100C.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Except that AGT is hardly ever mentioned. The whole metrics for GW is based on "normalized" GMAST. And usually, the GMAST baseline is much shorter than anything that should be used for climate change. EVEN if -- it becomes a century average and not just a 30 year running average.
Wuwei
Gold Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 5,342
- 1,178
- 255
The NASA graph of more recent temperatures that Ding was concerned with looks like a 100 year average. Ding referred to it as a GMT so I went with that. It seems that the GMAST is a (slowly) moving target, and the GMT is a faster moving target. Thanx for the info.
Don't be stupid, that is the unit of measure not the reference point.
The reference point is a temperature from a specific year. The AGT is a delta temperature from the reference temperature. Which is why I spewed coke all over my keyboard wen you stated that the AGT was 15C. It appears from post #200 that you believe the current average global temperature is 15C.
What do you do for a living exactly?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #208
No. The slopes are not very different. Use your eyes. But even if they were, that doesn't mean diddly squat. The reality is that we are still below the peak temperatures of the last 4 interglacial cycles. What part of this do you not understand?
[/QUOTE]
Good God, again, you claim to be an engineer?
In the upper graph, on the Y axis, the distance for ten degrees is the same as the distance for one degree on the bottom graph. On the X axis, the distance on the upper graph for 200,000 years is only about 700 years on the bottom graph. So the slopes are very different if you put them on the same scales. It took, on the upper graph, a minimum of ten thousand years to warm from the bottom of the glacial, to the maximum warmth of the interglacial. That is less than a degree every thousand years.
So, on the bottom graph, put a dot at -1 degrees at 500. Now put a dot at 0 degrees at 1500. Draw a line between them. That is your slope for the glacial to interglacial warmup. Now look at that slope on the last 150 years. That is a fairly accurate comparison of the two slopes. Dingleberry, you are rapidly demonstrating that you intellect is in the same class as SSDD and Frankie boi.
Wuwei
Gold Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 5,342
- 1,178
- 255
I was referring to the yearly global average temperature. Flacaltenn set us both straight with his post:
Good God, again, you claim to be an engineer?No. The slopes are not very different. Use your eyes. But even if they were, that doesn't mean diddly squat. The reality is that we are still below the peak temperatures of the last 4 interglacial cycles. What part of this do you not understand?
In the upper graph, on the Y axis, the distance for ten degrees is the same as the distance for one degree on the bottom graph. On the X axis, the distance on the upper graph for 200,000 years is only about 700 years on the bottom graph. So the slopes are very different if you put them on the same scales. It took, on the upper graph, a minimum of ten thousand years to warm from the bottom of the glacial, to the maximum warmth of the interglacial. That is less than a degree every thousand years.
So, on the bottom graph, put a dot at -1 degrees at 500. Now put a dot at 0 degrees at 1500. Draw a line between them. That is your slope for the glacial to interglacial warmup. Now look at that slope on the last 150 years. That is a fairly accurate comparison of the two slopes. Dingleberry, you are rapidly demonstrating that you intellect is in the same class as SSDD and Frankie boi.[/QUOTE]
My goodness. You are an idiot. Slope is a calculation. The difference you are trying to distinguish is resolution. There is not enough resolution from ice core data to make a valid comparison. Furthermore, even if there were it would meaningless.
Not quite. You were so far from what agt is that your statement was idiotic and showed that you have no idea what we have been discussing. What do you do for a living?
Lol. Right. He failed to put the decimal in. You do realize that both graphs were plotting temperature in agt, right?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #214
My goodness. You are an idiot. Slope is a calculation. The difference you are trying to distinguish is resolution. There is not enough resolution from ice core data to make a valid comparison. Furthermore, even if there were it would meaningless.[/QUOTE]Good God, again, you claim to be an engineer?No. The slopes are not very different. Use your eyes. But even if they were, that doesn't mean diddly squat. The reality is that we are still below the peak temperatures of the last 4 interglacial cycles. What part of this do you not understand?
In the upper graph, on the Y axis, the distance for ten degrees is the same as the distance for one degree on the bottom graph. On the X axis, the distance on the upper graph for 200,000 years is only about 700 years on the bottom graph. So the slopes are very different if you put them on the same scales. It took, on the upper graph, a minimum of ten thousand years to warm from the bottom of the glacial, to the maximum warmth of the interglacial. That is less than a degree every thousand years.
So, on the bottom graph, put a dot at -1 degrees at 500. Now put a dot at 0 degrees at 1500. Draw a line between them. That is your slope for the glacial to interglacial warmup. Now look at that slope on the last 150 years. That is a fairly accurate comparison of the two slopes. Dingleberry, you are rapidly demonstrating that you intellect is in the same class as SSDD and Frankie boi.
So, you have a rise of about 1 degree in a thousand years, and you have a rise of over 1 degree in 150 years, and you are stating that you cannot see them on the lower graph? Man, no way you are an engineer. Yes, you can calculate the slope of a line, but you can also graph that line. And the line on that graph from -1.0 degrees at 500, to 0 degrees at 1500, a span of 1000 years, has a far lower slope than the line on that graph that shows the slope of the rise in the last 150 years. That you would argue with that demonstrates you are completely unable to read simple graphs.
The boy is an idiot. He knows it was no decimal error.
Good God, again, you claim to be an engineer?No. The slopes are not very different. Use your eyes. But even if they were, that doesn't mean diddly squat. The reality is that we are still below the peak temperatures of the last 4 interglacial cycles. What part of this do you not understand?
In the upper graph, on the Y axis, the distance for ten degrees is the same as the distance for one degree on the bottom graph. On the X axis, the distance on the upper graph for 200,000 years is only about 700 years on the bottom graph. So the slopes are very different if you put them on the same scales. It took, on the upper graph, a minimum of ten thousand years to warm from the bottom of the glacial, to the maximum warmth of the interglacial. That is less than a degree every thousand years.
So, on the bottom graph, put a dot at -1 degrees at 500. Now put a dot at 0 degrees at 1500. Draw a line between them. That is your slope for the glacial to interglacial warmup. Now look at that slope on the last 150 years. That is a fairly accurate comparison of the two slopes. Dingleberry, you are rapidly demonstrating that you intellect is in the same class as SSDD and Frankie boi.
So, you have a rise of about 1 degree in a thousand years, and you have a rise of over 1 degree in 150 years, and you are stating that you cannot see them on the lower graph? Man, no way you are an engineer. Yes, you can calculate the slope of a line, but you can also graph that line. And the line on that graph from -1.0 degrees at 500, to 0 degrees at 1500, a span of 1000 years, has a far lower slope than the line on that graph that shows the slope of the rise in the last 150 years. That you would argue with that demonstrates you are completely unable to read simple graphs.
I guess I am going to have to show you graphically what I am saying for you to understand.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,678
- 43,993
- 2,605
DAMN ITS COLD OUTSIDE!!!
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,678
- 43,993
- 2,605
Great tune. Buble is not a kooky loony dupey warmer like you.
Similar threads
