Climate Change: You can deny, but you can't hide.

There is a smaller graph on a different time scale there. And...?

You are makin' $#!+ up again.

 

Because there is no relevant math to be done with that graph. You are either willing to see or you aren't. You aren't. Simple.

Go ahead. It'd be fun to watch you make a fool of yourself again.

 

I am sorry you have a visual problem AND a math problem. The insert in YOUR own chart shows a scale charge chart that includes the industrial revolution with a dramatic increase in slope. An increase in slope, shows an increase in the rate of change. It ONLY occurs that steeply during the industrial revolution. That’s your math lesson for today. So far, you’ve been able to say nothing related to math. To say “ there is no relevant math.....with the graph” is hilarious. ALL graphs by their definition have math relevancy. All Graphs By definition measure relationships between two or more measures. ALL OF THEM, NO EXCEPTIONS.
GRAPH definition-
“diagram showing the relation between variable quantities, typically of two variables, each measured along one of a pair of axes at right angles.”

the two variables are temperature and time.....in your own graph.

 

On what basis are you making that claim? The small chart only shows a few thousand years, does not include the transition from the last Ice Age (which the large graph shows was extremely rapid), and invalidly commingles high-resolution instrument with low-resolution proxy data.

So, no math content at all. Thanks for the chuckle.

There is no relevant math on the graph.

But not relevancy to the issue.

Graphs show relationships between two different kinds of data. In this case, they are temperature and time. There is no math relevancy because the data do not follow any mathematical function. They are simply proxy reconstructions.

 

That’s funny. This graph is a high school algebra representation.
If you don’t know that slope between two points on a graph represent rate of change, just say so. We’ll forgive your slander of me as embarrassment on your part for being called out.

 

Oh, you’re a “ data man”.
Do you know what slope is ?
Please don’t keep pretending you know math when you can’t even identify the slope between any two points in a graph represents the rate of change.
In this case, with time and degrees, it’s the rate of change in degrees over time in years, it would be labeled as, “degrees per year”.
At the end of the insert, the slope is steeper then anywhere else in time before the industrial revolution. .

 

Ha ha
What is a function ? You just opened a can of worms.

The graph you posted represents a continuous function. So of course it is a math function. Be careful. You reveal your math illiteracy every post you make.

 

Do you know what range is?

<yawn> So, you think the slope from zero to 2pi on a sine graph represents the rate of change?? ROTFL!!

No it isn't. It's only steeper than at any previous point in that insert graph, which only covers a few thousand years and invalidly commingles high-resolution instrument data with low-resolution proxy data. It says nothing whatever about the rate of change during the transition from the last Ice Age, which the large graph shows was extremely rapid.

 

You are scrambling looking up inane math terms. The graph is a function. It passes the vertical line test. It’s not strictly a periodic function. Look at the slope at any point along the curve at end of your insert. You’ll find NOTHING steeper over that period of time anywhere else in your own graph.

Btw, if you want to represent the graph over the given interval as a function, it’s best done using a polynomial and not a periodic function.

 

<sigh> Fine. A function described by an equation.

No. It may look like a continuous function, but actually it's just a smoothed data set. Sure, technically it is a "function," but only in the same trivial sense that {(0,1) (1,0)} is a function.

Oh, give it a rest. You aren't impressing anyone with that kind of autistic garbage.

 

I doubt you really know what this means.

 

You’re all over the place. You said there was no relavent math to this graph now you’re scrambling to discribe what type of function it is.....that is a little funny you have to admit.

 

"Inane" because they prove you don't know what you are talking about?

Talk about inane! So does the "function" {(0,1) (1,0)}. Such jejune mathiness is not interesting, sorry.

It's not periodic at all. It's just a smoothed data set that shows some non-periodic oscillations.

Because you are invalidly commingling high-resolution with low-resolution data. Duh.

Where did you get the idea that it could be represented by a periodic function?

 

The graph IS A CONTINUOUS function over the interval in your graph. It’s a math model representing the change in temperature over time. No where, is the change greater in that interval, then it is during the industrial revolution.

if you get that, you now know what AGW is about.....the rate of change we have contributed to in models like this one . There are many other models from many other studies. They don’t disagree with the general premise. No one at any university in the entire world, has refuted this fundamental of this basic graph

 

There is no relevant math. It's just a smoothed data set.

 

Ooh. When in doubt, deniers start playing gotcha questions. Math talk restricts itself to the problem at hand.....discrete relations have place here: it’s continuous.
It’s a sure sign you’re trying to regain control of a topic you lost many posts ago.

 

So, what’s a “ smoothed data set” .....here it’s a function.
You business guys need way more theoretical math.

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

It only looks continuous.

I lost interest in your pathetic attempts at mathiness many posts ago.

 

Only in the same trivial sense that {(0,1) (1,0)} is a function. Not interesting.

You haven't shown any relevant math, nor will you ever be doing so.

 

It looks continuous because the model in your chart, is continuous. If you wanted it to be discrete, you’d have to plot every freaking measure by biologist and anthropology for thousands of years.

It’s your graph, the one you chose. It illustrates that you can find no evidence that contradicts every university in the world.

 

We can’t tell when Trump gets the flu or just snorted a line.

 

You couldn’t recognize relevant math if it bit you in the asteroid. We’ve established that long ago.

 

Well, we’ve accomplished two things; shown you are wrong on AGW and given your inane arguments way too much attention.

moving on

 

Umm, there is no accountability from dagosa here.

 

Is this how you explain fossil fuels causing volcanos, or do fossil fuels cause all problems?