Tell me lee, what does the slope of the rate of change give?

'Climate science' (mostly stats anyway) is hopelessly compromised and politicised.

Look at people baying for 'net zero' and 'climate action'. They are stupid and they everywhere - except in front of Chinese embassies. 
It's the latest Children's Crusade but giving a very wide berth to reality.

lee wrote on Oct 17^th, 2021 at 4:37pm:

No lee, it gives you the acceleration of the rate of change.

If the graph HAD BEEN of temperatures you would have been right. But the graph was CLEARLY labelled CHANGE in temperatures. No need to calculate the first derivative to get the rate of change.

This was obvious but you MISSED it. You missed it because you are an obsessive-compulsive with a fear of change. You were wrong here, you were wrong with the age of Antarctic volcanoes and you wiveere wrong with your “four new papers” because you do not look at things objectively. You are an obsessive and so miss the obvious.

John Smith wrote on Oct 17^th, 2021 at 4:56pm:



Another who can't read a graph.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 17^th, 2021 at 9:06pm:


And still fail to understand them.

So is 0.003C/decade greater or lesser than 0.01C and/or 0.008C/decade?

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 18^th, 2021 at 7:44am:



Ooh look JM has heavily qualified his statement.

And HadCRUT shows roughly the same temperature 2000 and 2020. Maybe a slight cooling.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 18^th, 2021 at 7:44am:


So tell us what will happen if it gets to 2C above? Not computer models.

His hilarious comments about taking the slope of the line to get the rate of change—from a graph showing the rate of change!

The acceleration of the rate of change, which you get by taking the slope of the graph of the rate of change would not be degrees/decade but degrees per decade per decade just like an object falling near the surface of the earth accelerates at 9.8m per second per second: 9.8m per second is the increase in speed at which the object falls each second, 9.8m per second per second (9.8m/s

2

)

And now lee reposts “three new papers” directly from WUWT.

More hilarity!

First lee says the models are running too hot, now he is saying, in effect, that the models are running too cool because they don’t take into account increased SW radiation! Same he didn’t want to admit to an increase in the rate temperature was increasing at yet now apparently that acceleration in the rate of warming is too small!

None of those three papers touch on WHY clouds have changed! Pisspoor papers.

I saw mentioned two–three years ago that the nature of clouds was changing, that cumulonimbus (thunderstorm clouds at low levels in the atmosphere) type clouds were giving way to cirrus type clouds—wispy thin clouds at high altitudes. We know cumulonimbus clouds reflect/absorb a lot of light which is why we see them as gray. Cirrus clouds let most light through and they appear white in consequence.

You can believe the change is random if you like, saves you having to think. More useful is to think of a reason and that reason will be an effect of AGW in all likelyhood. After all, AGW changes the convection patterns in the atmosphere.