That means its 30-year trend is +0.17°C/decade, and its 15-year trend is +0.14°C/decade.
And that again it shows the last 5-years at a record high, though there's still a big difference between UAH and RSS (averaging 0.12°C in the last 12 months, with UAH higher):
2 comments:
It seems to me that to get an updated 30-year graph, your anomaly should be figured on 1985-2014, not 1981-2010, because the anomalies past 2010 that are not included now skew the graph.
Further, the use of the word "soar" to describe a temperature anomaly CHANGE from about 0.18 in 2013 to the current 0.21, a relatively paltry change of 0.03, is an EXTREME exaggeration. The entire period temp change is barely measurable or noticable! The same goes for calling the 0.08 degree current UAH-RSS differential (at the end of the graphs) a "big difference".
It would be much more informative if the anomaly graph baseline temperature was noted on the plot. Ie, if it was 50 degrees, and with the indicated anomaly, the 30-year trend of 0.17 degrees/decade would equate to a 0.33% temp change/decade, giving a better perspective on the relatively minor change.
For such a small change in ave temp over 30 years to be called the driver of climate "change" and extreme weather events is beyond ludicrious. A paltry temp change does NOT drive weather or climate.
There is a strong solar and El Nino signature in this graph - not from CO2!
Why do UAH and RSS diverge and swap trajectories in 2007?
Bob: UAH picks the baseline period, not me.
The entire period's change (since 1979) is +0.49 C (= +0.88 F). That's very measurable and noticeable.
The trends are independent of the baseline chosen. I don't see how expressing them as a percentage is at all useful -- we think of temperature in terms of degrees, not percentages.
There is no evidence that solar changes are driving up temperatures.
Post a Comment