Newfie wrote:Statistically insignificant. If you look at the chart you see similar deviations, plus and minus, along the entire line. So this is nothing new. It may well just reflect the level of accuracy of the measurement. The long term trend still continues. Now if this trend were to continue for a few more years, add 3 or more Dara points then it would be significant.
But keel watching and get back to us in as the data develops.
You are in good company there Newf, skeptics have been saying for years the changes in temperature anomalies are statistically insignificant!
NOAA explains that a margin of error takes into account the “inherent level of uncertainty” that comes with “[e]valuating the temperature of the entire planet.”
The agency adds that the reported temperature anomaly — 0.94 C in the case of 2016 — “is not an exact measurement; instead it is the central — and most likely — value within a range of possible values.”
For example, that range, or margin of error, would be 0.79 C (1.42 F) to 1.09 C (1.96 F) for 2016. Scientists at NOAA are 95 percent certain the temperature anomaly for 2016, or for any given year, will fall within the margin of error.
As Inhofe notes, NOAA scientists found that the average temperature for 2015 was 0.04 C less than 2016’s at 0.90 C (1.62 F) above the 20th century norm. The margin of error for 2015 was plus-or-minus 0.08 C (0.14 F), which means the range for 2015 is between 0.82 C (1.48 F) and 0.98 C (1.76 F).
The difference between 2015 and 2014, however, was wider. The average temperature for 2014 was 0.74 C (1.33 F) above the 20th century mean, or 0.16 C (0.29 F) less than 2015. The range for 2014 is between 0.59 C (1.06 F) and 0.89 C (1.60 F).
So the margins of error for these three years do overlap.