The difference is that 0C = 273K and 0K = -273C
In other words, Kelvin is the same as centigrade, but starts at 0, whereas Centigrade starts at the freezing point of water. To get unnecessarily picky, when someone says 1% warmer, that should really be in Kelvin. EG, 100% warmer from 1C to 2C is true in the measurement scale, but actually not a great difference in the actual temperature.
SO, when someone says a difference = .05K per decade, that's exactly the same as .05C per decade.
Sometimes one can infer, from their terminology, whether they're trying to help, or confuse you.
In this case, I'd be inclined to think that the poster is trying to confuse the issue because he/she is not using the term "C" that is most easily understood. Guesses like mine are obviously not always true, but I find that they're true much more than 50% of the time.
Have a good day. ;)
"What does K temperature refering to global warming mean?"
As others have pointed out, the "temperature scale unit" for K and C° is the same size. When talking about temperature differences, it is customary to move the degree symbol across the unit name (100 °C is the boiling temperature of water at sea level pressure, 100 C° is a temperature difference of 100 celsius or centigrade degrees)... but they decided that Kelvin was never to have the degree symbol expressed.
"We would all be frozen by now if that was true, and I need to know what that K means in celsius."
They were talking about a difference in temperatures over a decade, not an absolute temperature measurement. In the case of Kelvin, this requires you to depend on context for clear meaning.
Kelvin is nearly the same as Celsius. It just starts at absolute zero.
-273.15 Deg K
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/temp...
The average temperature of the Planet has risen 0.7C since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (call it 300 years). That would be the same as 0.7K or .023K per decade, if you are going to blame the whole of industrialization for the temperature rise. Calculating it as a percentage rise per decade you would have to divide 0.023K by 287.3K which gives you 0.008% rise in temperature per decade over the past 300 years.
Ouch!!!!
If we calculate it from 1998, then we will find the trend is negative and temperatures are falling, but why would Climate Change/Global Warming advocates ever point that out?
We can manipulate numbers to show just about any trend. All you have to do is pick 2 points that would show a favorable outcome for what you are trying to show as true.
I have to believe it would be K for Kelvin.
It is NOT am impossible value to reach. they are telling you the delta. i.e. If the average is 290K then in 10 years the average will be 290.05K.
K = C + 273
Where -273 C = absolute Zero
A degree change in kelvin is the same as celcius or centigrade. It's a different scale for absolute temperatures. Zero celcius is about 273 kelvin.
A few degrees makes a lot of difference as they are an average over the whole planet. The last ice age was 'only' 5 degrees cooler than today. With only 1 degree warming we're already seeing weather extremes changing, so the question wpild be: are we ready for 2 or 4 degree more?
kelvin and temperature have same interval scale although they are not same numerically. 273 K = 0C and 274K=1C . that is if kelvin scale changes by unit centigrade scale changes by unit.
Thus 0kelvin =-- 273C which is considered to be minimum possible temperature in earth.So 0.05 change in kelvin is 0.05 change in centigrade scale as well.
I was reading some articles about global warming and all of them said that the "warming is 0.05 K per decade", but Kelvin doesn't make any sense! How come the warming per decade is a negative impossible to reach temperature? We would all be frozen by now if that was true, and I need to know what that K means in celsius.
Thx guys!
