Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Forethat said:

Excuse me, but I didn't choose that period as a point of origin.

 

1. YOU chose to debate the period 1998-2018. Not me. So feel free to keep your accusations to yourself.

2. YOU chose to post a graph that showed the Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water Temperature anomalies. Not me. And then you claimed that the measurements were invalid and blamed me for it? You've got some nerve...

3. YOU blame others for data published by NASA and claim those who refer to it as "make the unwary reader think that Nasa is the creator of the graph". 

 

If you want to debate another period, feel free to do so, but in case you initiate a debate regarding the period 1998-2018 the facts are conclusive - as provided by NASA - the global warming measured in Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water Temperature is 0.45 degrees Celsius. Using the Land-Ocean Temperature Index the warming for the period YOU brought up for discussion is 0.24 degrees Celsius. Facts. I know you think facts suck, but I can't help you there.

 

So please stop blaming people for debating a period YOU brought up for discussion.

 

 

Happy to help!

1) False. I did not bring up the period from 1998 to 2018. It was canuckamuck who brought up these dates in post #2302

"There is no correlation between CO2 and warming, There have been some parallels. But always led by warming. There has been no statistically significant warning since 1998 though."

This has long been a claim of denialists. And it's a false claim because of El Nino. But if you don't believe me, here is what Nasa has to say (the boldface is mine):

"The 1997-98 El Niño contributed to the largest (at the time) one-year jump in global average surface temperature on record, helping to make 1998 the warmest year of the twentieth century. Choosing a record-warm year as the starting point for a trend analysis increases the odds of finding a cooling trend. The influence of that record-warm El Niño year on short-term temperature trends was amplified by a heavy tilt toward La Niña events over the next 15 years."

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998

The 15 year stretch is long over.. It's 2019. The 5 hottest years on record were dated from 2014 to 2018. 

 

2) You're wrong. I have never claimed that the data was invalid.

 

3) As i painstakingly pointed out, I don't blame others for Nasa's data. I do blame whoever created that graph for the ambiguous wording. I was quite painstakingly explicit about that. Who did create that graph? Got a link?

 

 

 

 

 

[Stargeezr]

A teen who has very little life experiences is telling every adult, Shame on you.    This teen has not had a vehicle, a home like a house or condo etc, or even rent. This girl has not had a job, or debts, or other worries. She has not lost a job, lost her vehicle or home or anything like many adults have, yet she is ranting on about climate change. Does she even realize that the world could be heating itself up and mankind will not do anything to change it even no matter what we all do to try.  It is time she was sent home to go back to her school and get the rest of her education. Many people say do not use oil anymore for anything, but forget how many items we all use, have oil products in their   manufacture. Shoes, gym equipment, and sports clothing, 2 thirds or more of a vehicles makeup. most of phones,  computers, TV and other entertainment systems. We would all be wearing furs or if cloth clothing even the threads are not just cloth, but have fibers of oil made product to keep it from rotting.  Eye glasses and auto windshields are not pure glass either.  Some people forget the reality of the lives we have in this modern world, and the dependence we have on oil.

Geezer

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

A teen who has very little life experiences is telling every adult, Shame on you.   This teen has not had a vehicle, a home like a house or condo etc, or even

rent. This girl has not had a job, or debts, or other worries. She has not lost  a job, lost her vehicle or home or anything like many adults have, yet she

is ranting on about climate change. Does she even realize that the world could be heating itself up and mankind will not do anything to change it even no matter what we all do to try.  It is time she was sent home to go back to her school and get the rest of her education. Many people say do not use oil anymore for

anything, but forget how many items we all use, have oil products in their  manufacture. Shoes, gym  equipment, and sports clothing, 2 thirds or more of

a vehicles makeup. most of phones, computers, TV and other entertainment systems. We would all be wearing furs or if cloth clothing even the threads are

not just cloth, but have fibers of oil made product to keep it from rotting.  Eye glasses and auto windshields are not pure glass either.  Some people forget the reality of the lives we have in this modern world, and the dependence we have on oil.

Geezer

Well said.

I wonder what all of those that want us to stop using oil for propulsion will do when the price of all those products goes up?

The oil they use to make things is a by product of the oil they pump to make fuel. If less oil is being pumped for fuel, the price goes up.

Also, the militaries of the world will NEVER convert ships, tanks etc to battery power. Taxes will go up to pay for more expensive fuel for the military.

 

"Stop the war, my battery needs recharging"

[bristolboy]

On 10/30/2019 at 5:29 AM, canuckamuck said:

But it did warm this fast from 1900 to 1940, exactly the same rate of warming, when most people still used horses to get around,

There is no correlation between CO2 and warming, There have been some parallels. But always led by warming. There has been no statistically significant warning since 1998 though.

There is a big problem with comparing the 40 years of 1900 - 1940 ) against the last 40 years. It has to do with something called reversion to the mean. What you don't note is that for most of the time period you cite global average temperature was below the mean. Most of that rise just getting back to the baseline. In other words reversion to the mean. Which is what you would expect in the ordinary course of things. But the current temperature rise is not about getting back to the baseline, is it? The last 40 years started above the baseline and the trend clearly shows a consistent rise since.

[canuckamuck]

54 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There is a big problem with comparing the 40 years of 1900 - 1940 ) against the last 40 years. It has to do with something called reversion to the mean. What you don't note is that for most of the time period you cite global average temperature was below the mean. Most of that rise just getting back to the baseline. In other words reversion to the mean. Which is what you would expect in the ordinary course of things. But the current temperature rise is not about getting back to the baseline, is it? The last 40 years started above the baseline and the trend clearly shows a consistent rise since.

Have a look at the climate record. Baseline is closer to 22 degrees. Right now we are at 14.

We are still in an Ice age.

[bristolboy]

36 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Have a look at the climate record. Baseline is closer to 22 degrees. Right now we are at 14.

We are still in an Ice age.

I'd love to take a look at the record. Got a link?

And the question really isn't about change. It's about rate of change. But if you're not concerned about the rate of change, but only its direction, then I guess it shouldn't matter whether  investments earn 1 percent per year or 10 percent. Just so long as the yield is positive. T-bills everyone?

[canuckamuck]

59 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I'd love to take a look at the record. Got a link?

And the question really isn't about change. It's about rate of change. But if you're not concerned about the rate of change, but only its direction, then I guess it shouldn't matter whether  investments earn 1 percent per year or 10 percent. Just so long as the yield is positive. T-bills everyone?

 You said we had reached the baseline. Baseline from 400 million years ago is 20+ degrees. Even the last 10,000 years averaged warmer than where we are today. Pull up some data and see for yourself. I will not provide you a graph because you will only deride the source and ignore the material.

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

 You said we had reached the baseline. Baseline from 400 million years ago is 20+ degrees. Even the last 10,000 years averaged warmer than where we are today. Pull up some data and see for yourself. I will not provide you a graph because you will only deride the source and ignore the material.

The baseline from the the NASA data covering the years from 1880 to the present. It was a response to your claim that temperatures had risen as quickly from 1900 to 1940 as they have in the past 40 years.

You don't seem to want to get it about rates. Even if your claims are true, they don't take into account the rate of change. Once again, does it make no difference to you what rate of interest your money earns  just so long as the rate is positive?

And for good reason, the moderators frown on posters who make claims they won't back up. 

 

[canuckamuck]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The baseline from the the NASA data covering the years from 1880 to the present. It was a response to your claim that temperatures had risen as quickly from 1900 to 1940 as they have in the past 40 years.

You don't seem to want to get it about rates. Even if your claims are true, they don't take into account the rate of change. Once again, does it make no difference to you what rate of interest your money earns  just so long as the rate is positive?

And for good reason, the moderators frown on posters who make claims they won't back up. 

 

You can't just pick a baseline from 140 years ago and say that when the temp gets there everything past it is unusual. Go back 10,000 years at least.

And the rate of change from 1900 to 1940 is the same rate as the last 40 years. 

That doesn't mean it isn't warmer now than then. It means the warming is within normal parameters. And that is very strange because of the huge increase in CO2 since the end of WW2. Tons of extra CO2, but normal warming. The AGW theory is dead as a door nail.

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

The AGW theory is dead as a door nail.

It's more like a zombie, being kept undead by repeated injections of hysteria from activists or the media, or sometimes the activists in the media, plus liberal application of taxpayer funds.

 

The best news of the day is that the annual United Nations climate gabfest has been cancelled this year, a month before it was due to take place with 25,000 attendees in Chile. Several tens of millions of dollars saved, at least.

 

I feel a bit sorry for the 36 activists who thought they would emulate Greta and sail a three-master 10,000 miles from Amsterdam to Valparaiso for the conference, and to be greeted by Greta herself, who's travelling overland from New York.

 

They're somewhere in the Atlantic off Mauritania, with no place to go. Greta won't be going, now, either.

 

Perhaps they will all learn a lesson.

[canuckamuck]

13 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It's more like a zombie, being kept undead by repeated injections of hysteria from activists or the media, or sometimes the activists in the media, plus liberal application of taxpayer funds.

 

The best news of the day is that the annual United Nations climate gabfest has been cancelled this year, a month before it was due to take place with 25,000 attendees in Chile. Several tens of millions of dollars saved, at least.

 

I feel a bit sorry for the 36 activists who thought they would emulate Greta and sail a three-master 10,000 miles from Amsterdam to Valparaiso for the conference, and to be greeted by Greta herself, who's travelling overland from New York.

 

They're somewhere in the Atlantic off Mauritania, with no place to go. Greta won't be going, now, either.

 

Perhaps they will all learn a lesson.

She's gotta row back home I guess.

[Forethat]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

1) False. I did not bring up the period from 1998 to 2018. It was canuckamuck who brought up these dates in post #2302

"There is no correlation between CO2 and warming, There have been some parallels. But always led by warming. There has been no statistically significant warning since 1998 though."

This has long been a claim of denialists. And it's a false claim because of El Nino. But if you don't believe me, here is what Nasa has to say (the boldface is mine):

"The 1997-98 El Niño contributed to the largest (at the time) one-year jump in global average surface temperature on record, helping to make 1998 the warmest year of the twentieth century. Choosing a record-warm year as the starting point for a trend analysis increases the odds of finding a cooling trend. The influence of that record-warm El Niño year on short-term temperature trends was amplified by a heavy tilt toward La Niña events over the next 15 years."

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998

The 15 year stretch is long over.. It's 2019. The 5 hottest years on record were dated from 2014 to 2018. 

 

2) You're wrong. I have never claimed that the data was invalid.

 

3) As i painstakingly pointed out, I don't blame others for Nasa's data. I do blame whoever created that graph for the ambiguous wording. I was quite painstakingly explicit about that. Who did create that graph? Got a link?

 

 

 

 

 

1. Read my post again. And this time, try to look at what you're reading. You chose to question and deny (you still do) that there had been any significant warming during the period in question. That's the debate. To support your view, you posted a graph. My post was a direct answer to your question. 

If you don't want to engage in a debate, please don't question others.

 

Here's a link to that post of yours:

 

 

 

2. Yes you did. Here's a link to that post. 

 

3. Oh, so you have changed your mind, you agree that the graphs I have posted gives an accurate view of the warming for the period 1998-2018..? Great, now we can close this debate.

 

I suspect that you've been so 'convinced' by climate activists that you actually believe that there's been significant warming during the 1998-2018. And when I put the real data in front of you, you simply refuse to take it in. You've denied pretty much everything. First you claimed that the graph I posted was wrong (it's not). Then you claimed that the data was invalid (it's not). Then you claimed that the graph was invalid (it's not). Then you claimed that it was deliberately manufactured to be decieving (it's not). Then you questioned whether the graph came from "a denialist website" (it didn't).  And to top things off, you call ME a denier (I'm not)? Haha, you crack me up... here's my final word in this debate:

 

There hasn't been any significant warming during the period 1998-2018. I have posted graphs, data and links to data sources that shows EXACTLY how much warming there has been during the period. The graph is valid. The data is valid. The links are valid. The data sources are valid. Live with it.

 

The good thing is that I suspect you've been forced to google and learn quite a few things during the debate, and it's always a good thing when people learn. 

 

Hope this helps.

[rabas]

26 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The best news of the day is that the annual United Nations climate gabfest has been cancelled this year, a month before it was due to take place with 25,000 attendees in Chile. Several tens of millions of dollars saved, at least.

The COP conference was cancelled because of serious protests against increases in the cost of public transportation. Transportation is a major energy consumer.

 

Just wait for Greta to tell them they must all start walking so rich globalists can get even richer. They will chase her back to her multi million dollar yacht.

[DrTuner]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah- "contributing". That's the key. Contributing what % of climate change is the significant thing. 

Do tell us what % of climate change is man made.

I'll take a wild guess. 15%. Most of it due to population growth and the deforestation and desertification associated with it.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Forethat said:

1. Read my post again. And this time, try to look at what you're reading. You chose to question and deny (you still do) that there had been any significant warming during the period in question. That's the debate. To support your view, you posted a graph. My post was a direct answer to your question. 

If you don't want to engage in a debate, please don't question others.

 

Here's a link to that post of yours:

 

 

 

2. Yes you did. Here's a link to that post. 

 

3. Oh, so you have changed your mind, you agree that the graphs I have posted gives an accurate view of the warming for the period 1998-2018..? Great, now we can close this debate.

 

I suspect that you've been so 'convinced' by climate activists that you actually believe that there's been significant warming during the 1998-2018. And when I put the real data in front of you, you simply refuse to take it in. You've denied pretty much everything. First you claimed that the graph I posted was wrong (it's not). Then you claimed that the data was invalid (it's not). Then you claimed that the graph was invalid (it's not). Then you claimed that it was deliberately manufactured to be decieving (it's not). Then you questioned whether the graph came from "a denialist website" (it didn't).  And to top things off, you call ME a denier (I'm not)? Haha, you crack me up... here's my final word in this debate:

 

There hasn't been any significant warming during the period 1998-2018. I have posted graphs, data and links to data sources that shows EXACTLY how much warming there has been during the period. The graph is valid. The data is valid. The links are valid. The data sources are valid. Live with it.

 

The good thing is that I suspect you've been forced to google and learn quite a few things during the debate, and it's always a good thing when people learn. 

 

Hope this helps.

I could go on repeating how you misrepresent what I've written but instead here's something from the department of hoist-by-your-own-petard. Here's a quote from you:

"I should also point out that NASA often uses the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as a measurement. Using that index, the warming during the period 1998-2018 has been even less. According to that index, the deviation was 0.61 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.85 degrees Celsius in 2018. That's a 0.24 degree warming in 20 years."

OK, let's say for argument's sake that your method is valid. That means that over the space of the 20 years from the end of 1998 through 2018, on average the climate warmed by .012 degrees. To get how much warming that would be for a hypothetical century you multiply by 100. That number is 1.2  That's 1.2 degrees Celsius. That's actually more than than climatologists say the earth has warmed on average in the past 100 years. So what exactly do you think you proved?

[canuckamuck]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I could go on repeating how you misrepresent what I've written but instead here's something from the department of hoist-by-your-own-petard. Here's a quote from you:

"I should also point out that NASA often uses the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as a measurement. Using that index, the warming during the period 1998-2018 has been even less. According to that index, the deviation was 0.61 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.85 degrees Celsius in 2018. That's a 0.24 degree warming in 20 years."

OK, let's say for argument's sake that your method is valid. That means that over the space of the 20 years from the end of 1998 through 2018, on average the climate warmed by .012 degrees. To get how much warming that would be for a hypothetical century you multiply by 100. That number is 1.2  That's 1.2 degrees Celsius. That's actually more than than climatologists say the earth has warmed on average in the past 100 years. So what exactly do you think you proved?

Not if you factor in the 40 years of cooling after 1940.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

Not if you factor in the 40 years of cooling after 1940.

That's not relevant to the gist of Forethat's argument. He contended that from the period from 1998 through 2018 was even less. Less than what? Not less than the average warming over the past 100 years. And of course, I posted my reply to your assertion that there was no warming at all from 1998 to 2018. 

[Forethat]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I could go on repeating how you misrepresent what I've written but instead here's something from the department of hoist-by-your-own-petard. Here's a quote from you:

"I should also point out that NASA often uses the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as a measurement. Using that index, the warming during the period 1998-2018 has been even less. According to that index, the deviation was 0.61 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.85 degrees Celsius in 2018. That's a 0.24 degree warming in 20 years."

OK, let's say for argument's sake that your method is valid. That means that over the space of the 20 years from the end of 1998 through 2018, on average the climate warmed by .012 degrees. To get how much warming that would be for a hypothetical century you multiply by 100. That number is 1.2  That's 1.2 degrees Celsius. That's actually more than than climatologists say the earth has warmed on average in the past 100 years. So what exactly do you think you proved?

Science isn't based on extrapolated data and assumptions but actual observations (well, IPCC might disagree with me on that one). Unfortunately, there are no direct observations that goes further back the 1700-ish (if I recall correctly, Celsius did early measurements at Uppsala University that dates back to the 1700's something). I think they are the earliest observations and recorded data.

 

When there are no direct observations recorded there are methods of reconstruction available. So your question is completely irrelevant, there are observations available for the past 100 years which clearly shows that the warming has been exactly 1.00 degrees Celsius expressed as Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water deviations from 1951-1980 Means (Celsius).

 

You really need to stop thinking that anyone who provides factual data is "proving" something or is trying to express support for a specific opinion. You don't even know what my opinion is. I'm simply showing you the factual data on the subject.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

Science isn't based on extrapolated data and assumptions but actual observations (well, IPCC might disagree with me on that one). Unfortunately, there are no direct observations that goes further back the 1700-ish (if I recall correctly, Celsius did early measurements at Uppsala University that dates back to the 1700's something). I think they are the earliest observations and recorded data.

 

When there are no direct observations recorded there are methods of reconstruction available. So your question is completely irrelevant, there are observations available for the past 100 years which clearly shows that the warming has been exactly 1.00 degrees Celsius expressed as Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water deviations from 1951-1980 Means (Celsius).

 

You really need to stop thinking that anyone who provides factual data is "proving" something or is trying to express support for a specific opinion. You don't even know what my opinion is. I'm simply showing you the factual data on the subject.

But in that case, by your calculations the rate was actually faster from 1998 to 2018 than the 100 year average. So what do you think you proved?

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Science isn't based on extrapolated data and assumptions but actual observations (well, IPCC might disagree with me on that one). Unfortunately, there are no direct observations that goes further back the 1700-ish (if I recall correctly, Celsius did early measurements at Uppsala University that dates back to the 1700's something). I think they are the earliest observations and recorded data.

 

When there are no direct observations recorded there are methods of reconstruction available. So your question is completely irrelevant, there are observations available for the past 100 years which clearly shows that the warming has been exactly 1.00 degrees Celsius expressed as Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water deviations from 1951-1980 Means (Celsius).

 

You really need to stop thinking that anyone who provides factual data is "proving" something or is trying to express support for a specific opinion. You don't even know what my opinion is. I'm simply showing you the factual data on the subject.

"Science isn't based on extrapolated data and assumptions but actual observations"

On the other

"When there are no direct observations recorded there are methods of reconstruction available."

 

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Forethat said:

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect that you've been so 'convinced' by climate activists that you actually believe that there's been significant warming during the 1998-2018. 

 

There hasn't been any significant warming during the period 1998-2018. I have posted graphs, data and links to data sources that shows EXACTLY how much warming there has been during the period. The graph is valid. The data is valid. The links are valid. The data sources are valid. Live with it.

 

 

 

 

I repeat that by your calculations the waming rate over a century would be 1.2 degrees centigrade instead just 1 degree climatologists say it is. How is that not significant?

[Forethat]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I repeat that by your calculations the waming rate over a century would be 1.2 degrees centigrade instead just 1 degree climatologists say it is. How is that not significant?

It's not my calculation. Please contact NASA for more information regarding their data. This is really difficult for you, isn't it?

[Forethat]

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But in that case, by your calculations the rate was actually faster from 1998 to 2018 than the 100 year average. So what do you think you proved?

It's not my calculation. Please contact NASA for more information regarding their data.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It's not my calculation. Please contact NASA for more information regarding their data. This is really difficult for you, isn't it?

The calculation is yours, the data came from NASA. But if you want to give NASA the credit, I'll humour you. In that case, NASA says that from 1998 to 2018 global temperatures saw a rise of .24 degrees. Extrapolated to a century that would be 1.2 degrees. Higher than what NASA has been saying. A very significant rise indeed.

[Forethat]

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"Science isn't based on extrapolated data and assumptions but actual observations"

On the other

"When there are no direct observations recorded there are methods of reconstruction available."

 

As much as you might struggle to grasp the fact the thermometers wasn't available a few million years ago, temperature can be reconstructed using observations of other elements. I suggest you don't make an attempt at appreciating that scientific method...

 

 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Forethat said:

As much as you might struggle to grasp the fact the thermometers wasn't available a few million years ago, temperature can be reconstructed using observations of other elements. I suggest you don't make an attempt at appreciating that scientific method...

 

 

I'm not in disagreement with that statement at all. It's you who are in disagreement with yourself. Unless someone else wrote this:

"Science isn't based on extrapolated data and assumptions but actual observations."

 

 

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The calculation is yours, the data came from NASA. But if you want to give NASA the credit, I'll humour you. In that case, NASA says that from 1998 to 2018 global temperatures saw a rise of .24 degrees. Extrapolated to a century that would be 1.2 degrees. Higher than what NASA has been saying. A very significant rise indeed.

It's not my calculation. I am using datasets published by NASA. And you are wrong again:

The global warming between 1998 and 2018 was 0.45 degrees using the Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water Temperature anomalies index. I've already posted that data. 

 

Here's a link to the data:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

Give up. You're out of your league by a mile.

 

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It's not my calculation. I am using datasets published by NASA. And you are wrong again:

The global warming between 1998 and 2018 was 0.45 degrees using the Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water Temperature anomalies index. I've already posted that data. 

 

Here's a link to the data:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

Give up. You're out of your league by a mile.

 

I lifted that .24 figure from one of your posts. #2308.

"I should also point out that NASA often uses the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as a measurement. Using that index, the warming during the period 1998-2018 has been even less. According to that index, the deviation was 0.61 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.85 degrees Celsius in 2018. That's a 0.24 degree warming in 20 years."

 

Of course if you want to use the .45 figure ( I wouldn't)  then extrapolated to a hypothetical century that would be a 2.25 degrees rise. My God, you're one of those Climate Alarmists I've been hearing so much about!

[CharlieH]

Reported Troll remark removed.

[Forethat]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I lifted that .24 figure from one of your posts. #2308.

"I should also point out that NASA often uses the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as a measurement. Using that index, the warming during the period 1998-2018 has been even less. According to that index, the deviation was 0.61 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.85 degrees Celsius in 2018. That's a 0.24 degree warming in 20 years."

 

Of course if you want to use the .45 figure ( I wouldn't)  then extrapolated to a hypothetical century that would be a 2.25 degrees rise. My God, you're one of those Climate Alarmists I've been hearing so much about!

They are two different data sets.

1. Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index. 

2. Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water Temperature

 

I have used both dataset and each time linked to the data as well as been specific as to which set was used. In addition, I have previously described the difference in data sets and warming outcome to exactly the numbers you describe. Here:

 

In addition, the 0.24 warming was according to the data set used to create the graph YOU first posted. But I concur, the warming for the period 1998-2018 is 0.24 degrees Celsius if you use the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index.