Because it is accelerating out of the normal deviation. Who said “constant”. Go back to bed
Oooo I know you are but what am I!
We “many righties” have acknowledged the warming trend for decades. That, however, does not discount that the data has been cooked by some climate researchers (re. East Anglia Climate Research Unit) to exaggerate the results. If some of those fanatics from 15 - 20 years ago had been right, there would be no Arctic Sea ice today and all the worlds coastal cities would be flooding. It appears that the skeptics have a much better track record than the alarmists.
2 Likes
Look at the data. 1998 (1996 statistically) is still the reference year. That is still the point where the rapid warming of the previous 25 years slowed significantly. Yes, several of the last 20 years have become the “warmest on record,” but they are all within the range of the peak in 1998. Statistically, there has been very little if any warming in the last two decades.
Since you have no data from the previous cycles to base that on you have no idea what deviation there is or isn’t.
Even the IPCC’s estimate shows a constant possible gain of just .1 deg per decade over the next century without any changes in emissions.
Perhaps you just don’t know the meaning of the word adaptation.
Don’t worry. Humans are the most adaptive species on the planet.
If you turn your thermostat up a degree per day for 20 days and then leave it alone, it follows that the temperature during the next 20 days will be at record level.
That is the metaphor for the rapid rise in the average global temperature from the late 70s to the late 90s and the subsequent significant slowing of warming since. Unless the global average decreases, the number of years falling into the top ten warmest will continue to mount up in the record books even as change in the global average stays fairly flat. It is simple math, not an indicator of a continuance of the previous rate of warming.
Velocity is not a term that applies to climate change. What you mean (presumably) is rate.
Sorry about that.
What’s your source?
Nonsense. There’s not nearly that much math in dogma.
Yes 10 char
What’s the difference between 33 degrees and 32. 0.1 x a century is 1 degree
The guy says we cant rely on temperature data then speaks of “historical highs”. 
Velocity is fine. All velocity means is speed and direction. The direction in this case is on one dimension and pointed towards “warmer”.
I was speaking from memory … I may have had it backwards. However, accepting your source, thermal expansion of the oceans is still a significant cause of sea level rise.
Furthermore, subsidence is also a major factor in relative sea level rise, particularly in areas built on sediments such as our gulf coast, much of Indonesia and Bangladesh, to list a few. In many locations, the rate of subsidence is ten times that of sea level rise.
Congrats, you’ve failed basic arithmetic.
0.1 per decade over a century is 1. Yes? Lol
Among climatologists, do the vast majority concur that humans caused global warming?
These two statements are not the same.