Illuminate us, Mr. Settled Science. How does a change from 0.6ºC per decade to 0.2ºC (or 0.4ºC) per decade represent an exponential increase?
Greta Thunberg warns of ‘catastrophic‘ climate crisis at England‘s Glastonbury Festival, says we need to ‘prioritize people over profit and greed’
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
More bullshit.
The IPCC said the 0.6ºC per decade increases had already been occurring in the 20th century.
"The 1990s was the warmest decade for 1,000 years, said the report. Temperatures rose by an average of 0.6C during the last century, with an increase in floods and droughts."
Warming could be worst in 10,000 years
An international group of scientists has confirmed the worst fears of environmentalists: the Earth's atmosphere could soar by almost 6C by 2100 - a rise unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.
www.theguardian.com
Furthermore, the RCP 8.5 scenario was released 13 years after the 2011 report in the IPCC's fifth assessment report: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3
The question remains: How does a change from 0.6ºC per decade to 0.2ºC per decade represent an exponential increase?
Here's a hint: It isn't an exponential increase. It's a decrease.
Last edited:
Your high-IQ expert is now trying to claim that numbers released in 2001 were based on modelling that was done 13 years later.
I guess he believes the IPCC has mastered the art of time travel.
Obviously you cannot comprehend that 2014 to 2020 is seven FULL CALENDAR years!! Start counting 2014 from January to December, and that is one full year. Finish by counting 2020 until December. It then adds up to 7 Full years. Maybe you now comprehend this simple basic fact!!Let's review.
- The period from 2014 to 2020 is not "7 years."
- The year 2020 is not "7 years since" 2014.
For the record, I don't merely "claim" that subtracting 0.75 from 0.85 doesn't equal 0.25. It is a fact.
As was previously noted, students who have successfully completed Ontario's Grade 5 math curriculum are able to correctly calculate the difference.
Annual 2020 Global Climate Report | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
An analysis of global temperatures and precipitation, placing the data into a historical perspective
This explains the "7 Years". Enough said!!
Global TemperaturesYour high-IQ expert is now trying to claim that numbers released in 2001 were based on modelling that was done 13 years later.
I guess he believes the IPCC has mastered the art of time travel.
The year began in ENSO-neutral conditions, transitioning to La Niña by August 2020. During the year, each monthly temperature for the months of January through November ranked among the four warmest on record for their respective months. While the months of January, May, and September were record warm. Meanwhile, the month of December had a global land and ocean surface temperature departure of 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average—this was the smallest monthly temperature departure during 2020 and was the eighth warmest December on record.
With a slightly cooler end to the year, the year 2020 secured the rank of second warmest year in the 141-year record, with a global land and ocean surface temperature departure from average of +0.98°C (+1.76°F). This value is only 0.02°C (0.04°F) shy of tying the record high value of +1.00°C (+1.80°F) set in 2016 and only 0.03°C (0.05°F) above the now third warmest year on record set in 2019. The seven warmest years in the 1880–2020 record have all occurred since 2014, while the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005. The year 1998 is no longer among the 10 warmest years on record, currently ranking as the 11th warmest year in the 141-year record. The year 2020 marks the 44th consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.
Annual 2020 Global Climate Report | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
An analysis of global temperatures and precipitation, placing the data into a historical perspective
Oh god.
Here we go again.
0.6ºC per century = 0.06ºC per decade on average (for the morons on the board 0.06 x 10 = 0.6)
That is lower then the present 0.2ºC per decade
And much lower than RCP 8.5's 0.6ºC per decade
If you put those three together, earlier 0.06ºC, present 0.2ºC and possible 0.6ºC together in one chart you make a fucking exponential curve.
Get it?
The 0.6ºC per decade was their highest temp scenario at the time. I don't remember what they call it and if I got the name wrong big fucking deal. It was their highest CO2 emission scenario, now called RCP 8.5.Furthermore, the RCP 8.5 scenario was released 13 years after the 2011 report in the IPCC's fifth assessment report: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3
The question remains: How does a change from 0.6ºC per decade to 0.2ºC per decade represent an exponential increase?
Here's a hint: It isn't an exponential increase. It's a decrease.
Why can't you figure out that a century of warming of 0.6ºC = 0.06C per decade.
Why can't you understand that they are talking about exponential climb in warming under the highest CO2 emissions that could possibly hit 0.6ºC per decade?
